


ow%.' 



•LIBRARY OF CONGKKSS. \ 



i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. ! 



SYNONYMS 



OF 



THE NEW TESTAMENT. 



BY 

KICHAKD CHEVENIX TRENCH, D. D. 



SECOND PART. 



NEW YORK : 

CHARLES SCRIBNER, 124 GRAND STREET. 

1864. 

[Published by arrangement with the Author.'] 









No 



LC Control Number 




tmp96 029017 



PREFACE 



In publishing a preceding volume on Syn- 
onyms of the Neio Testament, I took occasion 
to observe, that the synonyms dealt with in 
it might easily have been doubled or trebled, 
and that many of the most interesting had 
been left altogether untouched. The subject 
proves so inexhaustible that, after another 
considerable number dealt with here, the 
assertion seems to me just as true now as it 
was then. That it is a subject of interest to 
the student of theology, and that the little 
volume did, however partially and imper- 
fectly, supply a want, I feel assured by the 
several editions through which it has past, 



IV PKEFACE. 

and the requests which I have received to 
add a second part to that first. This I have 
at length done, and hope at some future day 
to fuse the two parts into a single volume. 
The book, though small in bulk, has been 
sufficiently laborious. It is my earnest prayer 
that, by God's blessing, the labour may not 
have been altogether in vain. 

Westminster, July 27, 1863. 



SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 

PART II. 



§ i. — ev^y, 7rpo(T€V)(7]} Seyo't'S, evrevgis, evxapMrria, 
atrrjfjLa, i/ceTrjpLa. 

Four of these words occur together at 1 Tim. 
ii. 1 ; on which Flacius Illyricus (Clavis, s. v. OraUd) 
justly observes, i Quern vocum acervum procul 
dubio Paulus non temere congessit.' It will be 
advisable to consider not these only, but the larger 
group of which they form a portion. 

Evxv occurs only once in the H. T. in the sense 
of a prayer (Jam. v. 15). On the distinction be- 
tween it and irpoaevxn, between evxeaOcu and irpoa- 
ev%e<7&w, there is a long discussion in Origen (De 
Orat. § 2, 3, 4), but not of any great value, nor 
bringing out more than the obvious fact that in 
evyr) an( l eij-^ecrdaL the notion of the vow, of the 
dedicated thing, is more commonly found than that 
of prayer. The two other occasions on which the 
1 



2 SYNONYMS OF THE 

word is found in the 1ST. T. (Acts xviii. 18 ; xxi. 23), 
bear ont this remark. 

Upocrevyr) and Serjo-i? often in the "N. T. occur 
together (Phil. iv. 6; Ephes. vi. 18; 1 Tim. ii. 1; 
v. 5), and not unfrequently in the Septnagint (Ps. 
vi. 10; Dan. ix. 21, 23; 1 Mace. vii. 37). There 
have been a great many, but for the most part not 
very successful, attempts to distinguish between 
them. Grotius, for instance, affirms that they are 
severally ' precatio ' and ' deprecatio ; ' that the first 
seeks to obtain good, the second to avert evil. Au- 
gustine, I may observe by the way, in his treatment 
of the more important of this group of words {Ejp. 
149, § 12 — 16), which, though interesting, does not 
yield any definite results of value, observes that in 
his time this distinction between 'precatio' and 
'deprecatio' had practically quite disappeared. 
Theodoret in like manner, who has anticipated Gro- 
tius here, explains irpocrev^r) as alrrjcn^ ayad<ov, and 
Berjcns as V7rep airaXkayrj^ revcov Xvirrjp&v i/cereta 
7rpo(j)6pofjLevr] : cf. Gregory of Nazianzum : 

SerjffLV 6tov, rrjv cu.Tt\aiv ivfiewv. 

This distinction is arbitrary; neither lies in the 
words, nor is it borne out by usage. Better Calvin, 
who makes one (irpoo-ewxfi = ' precatio ') prayer in 
general, the other (SeTjais = ' rogatio ') prayer for 
particular benefits : 6 irpoaev-)^ omne genus orationis, 



NEW TESTAMENT. O 

herj<ri<$ ubi certum aliquid petitur ; genus et species.' 
Bengel's distinction amounts very nearly to the 
same thing : ' Sei/crt? (a Sec) est imploratio gratise in 
necessitate quadam speciali ; irpoorevxn* oratio, exer- 
cetnr qualibet oblatione voluntatum et desideriorum 
erga Deum.' 

All these passages, however, while they have 
brought out one important point of distinction, have 
failed to bring out another — namely, that irpoo-evxv 
is 'res sacra.' a word restricted to sacred uses ; it is 
always prayer to God; SeTjoY? has no such restric- 
tion. Fritzsche (on Rom. x. 1) has not failed to 
urge this : ' f\ irpoaevxo et rj Sedans differunt ut pre- 
catio et rogatio. UpocreifxeaOai et rj irpoazvyr) verba 
sacra sunt ; precamur enim Deum ; Seladai, to BeTjfxa 
(Aristophanes, Acham. 1059) et rj Serja-is turn in 
sacra turn in profana re usurpantur. Nam et Deum 
rogare possumus et homines.' It is the same dis- 
tinction as in our ' prayer ' (though that has been 
too much brought down to mundane uses) and ' pe- 
tition,' in the German ' Gebet ' and ' Bitte.' 

"Evrev^is occurs only at 1 Tim. ii. 1 ; iv. 5, in 
the !N\ T. (but ivTwyx&veiv four or five times) and 
once in the Septuagint (2 Mace. iv. 8). ' Interces- 
sion,' by which the E. Y. renders it, is not, as we 
now understand ' intercession,' a satisfactory ren- 
dering. For eWeuft? does not necessarily mean 
what 'intercession' at present exclusively does 



4: SYNONYMS OF THE 

mean — namely, prayer in relation to others (at 
1 Tim. iv. 5 such meaning is impossible) ; a plead- 
ing either for them or against them. Least of all 
does it mean exclusively the latter, a pleading 
against our enemies, as Theodoret, on Rom. xi. 2, 
missing the fact that the i against ' lay there in the 
Kara, would imply, when he says : evrev^fc icrrc 
/carrjyopia twv clSl/covvtcdv ; cf. Hesychius : Serjcri? 
ek eichiic7)cnv virep twos (Rom. viii. 34) Kara twos 
(Rom. ii. 2) ; but, as its connexion with ivTvyxdveiv, 
to fall in with a person, to draw close to him so as 
to enter into familiar speech and communion with 
him, 1 implies, free familiar prayer, such as boldly 
draws near to God (Gen. xviii. 23 ; "Wiscl. viii. 21 ; 
cf. Philo, Quod Det. Pot. 25 ; eVrevfet? ical Ik$qt\- 
cret?). In justice, however, to our Translators it 
must be observed that 'intercession' had by no 
means once that limited meaning of prayer for 
others which we now ascribe to it ; see Jer. xxvii. 
18; xxxvi. 25. The Yulgate has ' postulationes ; ' 
but Augustine, in a discussion on this group of 
words referred to already (Ep. 149. § 12 — 16), pre- 
fers ' interpellationes,' as better bringing out the 
irapprjaia, the freedom and boldness of access which 
is involved in, and constitutes the fundamental idea 

1 The rendering of hC it/reviews, 2 Mace. iv. 8, ' by intercession,' 
can scarcely be correct. It refers more probably to the fact of a con- 
fidential interview between Jason and Antiochus. 



NEW TESTAMENT. 5 

of, the 6vt€v^l<; — ' interpellare ' being, as need hardly 
be observed, to interrupt another in speaking, and 
therefore ever implying forwardness and freedom. 
Origen (De Orat. 14) in like manner makes the 
boldness of access to God, asking it may be some 
great thing (he instances Josh. x. 12) the funda- 
mental notion of the evrevfys. 

Ev^apiarla (' thankfulness,' Acts xxiv. 3 ; ' giv- 
ing of thanks,' 1 Cor. xiv. 16 ; ' thanks,' Rev. iv. 9 ; 
' thanksgiving,' Phil. iv. 6, E. Y.), a somewhat rare 
word elsewhere, is frequent in sacred Greek. It 
would be out of place to dwell here on the special 
meaning which ev^aptaTla and i eucharist ' have 
acquired from the fact that in the Holy Communion 
the Church embodies its highest act of thanksgiving 
for the highest benefits which it has received of 
God. Regarding it as one manner of prayer, it is 
manifest that it expresses that which ought never to 
be absent from any of our devotions (Phil. iv. 6), 
namely, the grateful acknowledgment of past mer- 
cies, as distinguished from the earnest seeking of 
future. As such it may, and will subsist in heaven 
(Rev. iv. 9 ; vii. 12) ; will indeed be larger, deeper, 
fuller there than here ; for only there will the re- 
deemed know how much they owe to their Lord ; 
and this, while all other forms of prayer in the very 
nature of things will have ceased in the entire frui- 
tion of the things prayed for. 



G SYNONYMS OF THE 

AiTrjfjLa occurs twice in the N. T. in the sense of 
petitions of men to God, both times in the plural 
(Phil. iv. 6 ; 1 John v. 15) ; it is, however, by no 
means restricted to this meaning (Luke xxiii. 24 ; 
Esth. v. 7 ; Dan. vi. 7). In a Trpocrewxfi of any 
length there will probably be many alrrjfiaTa, being 
indeed the several requests of which it is composed. 
For instance, in the Lord's Prayer it is generally 
reckoned that there are seven alr^fiara, though 
some have regarded the three first as ev-^ai, and only 
the last four as alrrjfjiaTa. Witsius : ' Petitio pars 
orationis ; ut si totam Orationem Dominicam voces 
orationem aut precationem, singulas vero illius partes 
aut septem postulata petitiones.' 

f lK6T7]pCa, with pdft&os or ekaia, or some such 
word understood, like ikao-rrjpiov, dvcriacrTrjpiov, and 
other words of the same termination (see Lobeck, 
Pathol. Serm. Grcec. p. 281), was originally an ad- 
jective, but gradually obtained a substantive power 
and learned to go alone. It is explained by Plu- 
tarch (Th-es. 18) : xkdBos a,7rb Trjs iepas i\acas ipiay 
Xeviap fcareo-Te/jL/jLevos (cf. Wyttenbach's Plutarch, 
vol. xiii. p. 89), the olive-branch bound round with 
wool, held forth by the suppliant in token of the 
character which he bore (iEschylus, Eumenid.es, 43, 
44). A deprecatory letter, which Antiochus Epi- 
phanes is said on his death-bed to have written to 
the Jews, is described in 2 Mace. ix. 18 as i/cerrjpias 



NEW TESTAMENT. 7 

rdgtv e^ovaav, and Agrippa styles one addressed to 
Caligula: ypacf>r} rjv avd' iKerrjpla^ irporelvG) (Philo, 
Leg. ad Cai. 36). It is easy to trace the steps by 
which this, the symbol of supplication, came to sig- 
nify the supplication itself. It does so on the only 
occasion of the word's occurrence in the "N. T. (Heb. 
v. 7), being there joined to Se^crt?, as often elsewhere 
(Job xl. 3 ; Polybius, iii. 112. 8). 

Thus much on the distinction between these 
words; although, when all has been said, it will 
still to a great extent remain true that they will 
often set forth, not different kinds of prayer, but 
prayer contemplated from different sides and in 
different aspects. "Witsius (De Orat. Dom. § 4) : 
* Mihi sic videtur, unam eandemque rem diversis 
nominibus designari pro diversis quos habet aspec- 
tibus. Preces nostras Serjcrei,? vocantur, quatenus 
iis nostram apud Deum testamur egestdiem, nam 
Seecrdai indigere est ; irpoa-ev^a^ quatenus vota nos- 
tra continent ; ahrjfiara, quatenus exponunt jpeti- 
tiones et desideria ; ivrevgeis, quatenus non timide 
et diffidenter, se&familiariter Deus se a nobis adiri 
patitur ; ivrevgis enim est colloquium et congressus 
familiaris ; ivx^picrTlav gratiarum actionem esse 
pro acceptis jam beneficiis, notius est quam ut 
moneri oportuit.' — On the Hebrew correlatives to 
the several words just considered, see Vitringa, De 
Synagogd, iii. 2. 13. 



SYNONYMS OF THE 



§ ii. — acrvvOeros, a<T7rovSo$. 

'AcrvvOeros occurs only once in theN". T., namely 
at Rom. i. 31 ; cf. Jer. iii. 8 — 11, where it is found 
several times, but not elsewhere in the Septuagint. 
Acnrovhos occurs twice, Rom. i. 31 ; 2 Tim. iii. 3 ; 
but in the former of these passages its right to a 
place in the text is contested, as many important 
authorities omit it. It is nowhere found in the 
Septuagint. 

The distinction between the two words, as used 
in the Scripture, is not hard to draw ; — I say, as 
used in the Scripture ; because there may be a 
question whether aavvOero? has anywhere else ex- 
actly the meaning which it has there. Elsewhere 
often united with dirXov^, it has the sense of the 
Latin ' in compo situs.' But the acrvvOeToi of St. 
Paul are they who, being in covenant and treaty 
with others, refuse to abide by these covenants 
and treaties; fir] i/jLfjLevovres rah avvdrjicais (Hesy- 
chius) ; ' pactorum haudquaquam tenaces ' (Erasmus), 
' bundbruchig ' (not ' unvertraglich,' as Tittmann 
maintains) ; ' covenant-breakers,' E. Y. It is asso- 
ciated with aard6[i7]To^, Demosthenes, DeFals. Leg. 
383. The aairovZoi (the word is joined with davfi- 
fiaros and afcoivcovijTos, Philo, De Merc. Mer. 4), 



NEW TESTAMENT. 9 

worse than the hvo-hidXyroi (Aristotle, Ethic. JVic. 
iv. 5. 10), who are only hard to be reconciled, are 
the absolutely irreconcileable (aa-irovhoi /cal dtcardX- 
XctKToi, Philo, Quis Per. Div. Hcer. 50) ; those who 
will not be atoned (using this word in its earlier 
sense), who being at war refuse to lay aside their 
enmity, or to hear of terms of accommodation; 
' implacabiles, qui semel offensi reconciliationem 
non admittunt ' (Estius) ; ' unversohnlich,' c im- 
placable,' E. Y. The phrase, acnrovSos teal d/cij- 
pv/cTos 7r6\6fjLos is frequent, indeed proverbial, in 
Greek (Demosthenes, De Goron. 79 ; Philo, Be 
Proem, et Pcen. 15 ; Lucian, Pise. 36) ; in this con- 
nexion d/ctfpv zeros does not mean, which was not 
duly announced by the fecial; but these epithets 
describe the war as one in which no herald, no flag 
of truce, as we should say, is allowed to pass between 
the parties, no terms of reconcilement listened to ; 
such a war as that of the Carthaginians with their 
revolted mercenaries. In the same sense we have 
elsewhere clg-ttovSos iidyrj k^ 1 dSidWa/cro? epos (Aris- 
tsenetus, 2. 14) ; cf. acnreiaTos kotos (Meander, Ther. 
367) ; these two quotations are from Blomfield's 
Agamemnon, p. 285 ; daTrovhos e^Opa (Plutarch, 
Pericles, 30) ; da-Trovhos 6>eo? (Euripides, Alcestis, 
431). 

"Where davvOeros is employed, a peace is pre- 
sumed, which the dcrvvOeroi refuse to continue, but 
1* 



10 SYNONYMS OF THE 

unrighteously interrupt; while acrirovhos presumes 
a state of war, which the aairovhoi refuse to bring 
to a righteous close. It will be seen then that Cal- 
vin, who renders aairovhoi ' foedifragi,' and aavvderou 
1 insociabiles,' has exactly missed the force of both ; 
it is the same with Theodoret, who on Horn. i. 31 
writes : aavvOkrovs, tovs aKOivcbvrjTov koX irovr}pov 
ftiov aaira^ofievov^ ■ d(T7r6vBov<; rou9 aSeeo? to, <rvyfcel- 
fxeva irapafiaivovTas. Only by giving to each word 
that meaning which they have given to the other, 
will the right equivalents be obtained. 

In agreement with what has been just said, and 
in confirmation of it, is the distinction which Am- 
monius draws between avvOrjKT) and (nrovhrj. %vv- 
Orj/crj assumes peace ; being a further agreement, it 
may be a treaty of alliance, between those already 
on general terms of amity. Thus there was a avv- 
6t]/c7] between the several states that were gathered 
round Sparta in the Peloponnesian "War, that with 
whatever territory they began the war, with the 
same they should close it (Thucydides, v. 31). But 
airovhrj, or more commonly in the plural, assumes 
war, of which it is the cessation ; it may be only 
the temporary cessation, being often used of an 
armistice (Homer, 11. ii. 341). It is true that a 
a-vvOrjKrj may be attached to a a-irovhrj, terms of alli- 
ance consequent on terms of peace; thus awovSy 
and crvvOrjKT} occur together in Thucydides, iv. 18 : 



NEW TESTAMENT. 11 

but they are different things ; in the a-irovhrj there 
is a cessation of the state of war ; there is peace, or 
at all events truce ; in the o-vvOtfter) there is, super- 
induced on this, a further agreement or alliance. — 
Evo-vvderos, I may observe, which would be the 
exact opposite of aavvOeros, does not occur in Greek ; 
but evavvOeaia, Philo, De Mere. Mer. 3. 



§ iii. — /j,a/cpo0vjjLla, virofiovtf, avoj(fj. 

Ma/cpoOufjLia, and virofiovij occur together at Col. 
i. 11, where Chrysostom draws this distinction be- 
tween them ; that a man fjua/cpoOvfiei, who having 
power to avenge himself, yet refrains from the exer- 
cise of this power ; while he viro^evei, who having 
no choice but to bear, and only the alternative of a 
patient or impatient bearing, has grace to choose 
the former. Thus the faithful, he implies, would 
commonly be called to exercise the former grace 
among themselves (1 Cor. vi. 7), the latter in respect 
of those that were without : fia/cpodvfjutav 7r/?o? ak- 
XrjXovs, V7rop,ovrjv 7rpb<; tou? efft>* fia/cpodv/JLel yap Tt? 
7T/30? ifcelvov? ou? hvvarov ical dfjuvvaadai, virofievev 
he ou? ov Svvcltcu afivvaaOav. This, however, will 
not endure a closer examination ; for see decisively 
against it Heb. xii.. 2, 3.- He, to whom viropovr) is 



12 SYNONYMS OF THE 

there ascribed, bore, not certainly because He 
could not help bearing; for He might have sum- 
moned to his aid twelve legions of angels, if so He 
had willed (Matt. xxvi. 53). It may be well, there- 
fore, to consider the words apart, and then to bring 
them into comparison, and try whether some more 
satisfactory distinction between them cannot be 
drawn. 

MaKpoOvfila is a word of the later periods of the 
Greek language. It occurs in the Septuagint (Jer. 
xv. 15), and in Plutarch {Luc. 32), although not in 
Plutarch exactly with the sense which in Scripture 
it bears. The long-suffering of men he prefers to 
express by avefjitcafcla (De Cap. ex In. Util. 9), while 
for the grand long-suffering of God he has a noble 
word, of his own coining I believe, ^eyaXoTrdOeia 
{De jSer. Num. Vind. 5). The Church Latin ren- 
dered it by ' longanimitas,' which the Rheims Ver- 
sion sought to introduce into English in the shape of 
' longanimity,' but without success ; and this though 
Jeremy Taylor allowed and employed the word. 
We have preferred ' long-suffering,' and understand 
by it a long holding out of the mind before it gives 
room to action or passion — generally to passion. 
Anger usually, but not universally, is the passion 
thus long held aloof; the fiafcpodvfio? being one 
{3pa$v$ ets opyrjv, and the word exchanged for /cparcov 
6pyrj$, Prov. xvi. 32, and set over against 6v/jlcoBt]^, 



NEW TESTAMENT. 13 

Prov. xv. 18. At the same time it need not neces- 
sarily be wrath, which is thus excluded or set at a 
distance ; for when the historian of the Maccabees 
describes how the Romans had won the world "by 
their policy and their patience " (1 Mace. viii. 4), 
fiaKpoOu/jbia is that Roman persistency which would 
never make peace under defeat ; cf. Plutarch, Lug. 
32, 33 ; Isai. lvii. 1 5. The true antithesis to fxaicpo- 
Ov/jula in that sense is o^vOvjata, a word belonging to 
the best times of the language, and employed by 
Euripides (Androm. 729), as 6%v6vjjlo<; by Aris- 
totle {Rhet. ii. 12). 

But vTTOfjLovrj, — jSacriXl*; rebv aperwv Chrysostom 
calls it, — is that virtue which in heathen Ethics 
would be called more often by the name of Kaprepia 
(the words are joined together, Plutarch, Apoth. 
Lao. Ages. 2), and which Clement of Alexandria, 
following in the track of some heathen moralists, 
describes as the knowledge of what things are to be 
borne and what are not (iiri&Tijf£n/j ifi^everecov /cat 
ovk ififjbevericov, Strom, ii. 18 ; cf. Plutarch, De Plac. 
Phil. iv. 23), being the Latin ' perseverantia ' and 
' patientia ' * both in one, or more accurately still 

1 These two Cicero (Be Inven. ii. 54) thus defines : ' Patientia 
est honestatis aut utilitatis causa re rum arduarum ac difficilium volun- 
taria ac diuturna perpessio ; perseverantia est in ratione bene con- 
siderate stabilis et perpetua permansio.' Cf. Augustine, Qucest. 
lxxxiii. qu. 31. 



14 SYNONYMS OF THE 

'tolerantia.' 'In this noble word viro^iovrj there 
always appears (in the N". T.) a background of 
avSpeta (cf. Plato, Thecet. 177 ft, where av$piK<o<; 
virofielvai is opposed to avdvSpa? (pevyeiv) ; it does 
not mark merely the endurance, the ' snstinentiam ' 
(Vulg.), or even the 'patientiam ' (Clarom), but the 
' perseverantiam,' the brave patience with which the 
Christian contends against the various hindrances, 
persecutions, and temptations that befal him in his 
conflict with the inward and outward world.' (Elli- 
cott, on 1 Thess. i. 3.) Cocceius, too, (on Jam. i. 
12) has described it well: ' ' Ttto/jlovtj versatur in 
contemtu bonorum hujus mundi, et in forti suscep- 
tione afflictionum cum gratiarum actione ; imprimis 
autem in constantia fidei et caritatis ut neutro modo 
quassari aut labefactari se patiatur, ant impediri 
quominus opus suum et laborem suum efficiat.' 

"We may proceed now to draw a distinction 
between them ; and this distinction, 1 believe, will 
hold good in all places where the words occur: 
juLa/cpoOvfiia will be found to express patience in 
respect of persons, viro}Movrj in respect of things. 
The man /la/cpodv/nei, who, having to do with inju- 
rious persons, does not suffer himself easily to be pro- 
voked by them, or to blaze up into anger (2 Tim. 
iv. 2). The man viroixkvei, who under a great siege of 
trials, bears up, and does not lose heart or courage 
(Eom. v. 3 ; 2 Cor. i. 6 ; cf. Clemens Kom. 1 Ejp. 5). 



NEW TESTAMENT. 15 

We should speak, therefore, of the fiaKpodv/nia of 
David (2 Sam. xvi. 10 — 13), the virofiovrj of Job 
(Jam. v. 11). Thus, while both graces are ascribed 
to the saints, only /jLaKpoOv/xia is an attribute of 
God ; and there is a beautiful account of his jua/cpo- 
Ovfiia, though the word itself does not occur, at 
"Wisd. xii. 20. Men may tempt and provoke Him, 
and He may and does display fia/cpoOvfiia in regard 
of them (Exod. xxxiv. 6 ; Rom. ii. 4 ; 1 Pet. iii. 20) ; 
there may be a resistance to God in men, because 
He respects the wills with which He has created 
them, even when those wills are fighting against 
Him. But there can be no resistance to God, nor 
burden upon Him, the Almighty, from things; 
therefore virofjuovr) cannot find place in Him, nor is 
it, as Chrysostom rightly observes, ever ascribed to 
Him; for it need hardly be observed that when 
God is called ®eo? t?}? v7rofjLovr}<; (Rom. xv. 5), this 
does not mean, God whose own attribute viro^ovq 
is, but God who gives virofiovi] to his servants and 
saints, in the same way as @eo? j(ap LT0 ^ 0- ^ e ^- Y - 
10) is God, who is the author of grace ; 0eo? -n}? 
elptfvrjs (Heb. xiii. 20) God, who is the author of 
peace. So Tittmann (p. 194) : ' Oeo? tt)? viroiiovrj?, 
Deus qui largitur viroiJbovrjv^ 

'Avoxn> used commonly in the plural in classical 
Greek, signifies, for the most part, ' a truce or sus- 
pension of arms,' the Latin*' indutise.' It is excel- 



16 SYNONYMS OF THE 

lently rendered ' forbearance' on the two occasions 
of its occurrence in the E". T. (Rom. ii. 4 ; iii. 
26). Between it and fiafcpodufiia Origen draws the 
following distinction in his Commentary on the 
Romans (ii. 4) — the original, as is well known, is 
lost : — ' Sustentatio \avoxn\ a jpatientid \jiattpoQv- 
fiia] hoc videtur differre, quod qui infirmitate 
magis quam proposito delinquunt sustentari di- 
cuntur; qui vero pertinaci mente velut exsultant 
in delictis suis, ferri patienUr dicendi sunt.' 
This does not hit off very successfully the differ- 
ence. Rather the avoxn is temporary, transient: 
we may say that, like the word ' truce,' it asserts 
its own temporary, transient character ; that after 
a certain lapse of time, and unless other condi- 
tions intervene, it will pass away. This, it may be 
urged, is true of fiaKpoOv/ubta no less ; above all, of 
the divine yiaicpoQvp.ia. But as much does not lie 
in the word ; we may conceive of a fia/cpoOv/jLia, 
though it would be worthy of little honour, which 
should never be exhausted ; while avoyf) implies its 
own merely provisional character. Fritzsche (on 
Rom. ii. 4) distinguishes the words : ' rj avo^r) indul- 
gentiam not at qua jus tuuni non continuo exequutus, 
ei qui te lseserit spatium des ad resipiscendum ; 
i] pbaKpoOvfjiia clementiam significat qua irse tem- 
perans delictum non statim vindices, sed ei qui 
peccaverit pcenitendi locum relinqnas; ' and see 



NEW TESTAMENT. IT 

p. 198, on Rom. iii. 26, where he draws the matter 
still better to a point : ' Indulgentia (f) avoyr]) eo 
valet, ut in aliorum peccatis conniveas, non ut alicui 
peccata condones, quod clementioe est ; ' it is there- 
fore fitly used at this last place in relation to the 
irdpecns a/naprtayv which found place before the 
atoning death of Christ, as contrasted with the 
afacns dfMapTicov, which was the result of that death. 
It is that forbearance or suspense of wrath, that 
truce with the sinner, which by no means implies 
that the wrath will not be executed at the last; 
nay, involves that it certainly will, unless he be 
found under new conditions of repentance and obe- 
dience (Luke xiii. 9 ; Rom. ii. 13). The words are 
also distinguished, but the difference between them 
not very sharply drawn out, by Jeremy Taylor, in 
his first Sermon ' On the Mercy of the divine Judg- 
ments J in init. 



§ iv. — STprjvido}, rpvcpdco, (TTraTaXday. 

In all these words lies the notion of excess, of 
wanton, dissolute, self-indulgent, prodigal living, 
but with a difference. 

^Tprjvidv occurs only twice in the "N. T. (Rev. 
xviii. 7, 9), o-Tprjvo? once (Rev. xviii. 3 ; cf. 2 Kin. 



18 SYNONYMS OF THE 

xix. 28), and the compound Karaarp^viav as often 

(1 Tim. v. 11). It is a word of the New or Middle 

Comedy, and is used by Lycophron, as quoted in 

Athenceufl (x. 420 b); by Sophilus (ih. iii. 100 a); 

and Antiphanes (it. iii. 127 d) ; but rejected by the 

Greek purists-Phrynichus, indeed, affirming that 

none but one out of his senses would employ it, 

having rpvcpdv at his command (Lobeck, Phry- 

nichus, p. 381). They do however different work, 

and oftentimes one would be no substitute for the 

other, as will presently appear. Tpv^av, which is 

thus so greatly preferred, is of solitary occurrence 

in the 1ST. T. (Jam. v. 5), ivrpv^dv (2 Pet. ii. 13) of 

the same; but belongs with rpvty (Luke vii. 25; 

1 Tim. v. 11 ; 2 Pet. ii. 13), to the best age and 

most classical writers in the language. 

In <TTpr)vt,av{= arafereiv, Suidas ; or ha toy 
ttXovtov bPpi&iv, Hesychius) is properly the inso- 
lence of wealth, the wantonness and petulance from 
fulness of bread ; something of the Latin < lascivire.' 
There is nothing of sybaritic effeminacy in it; so 
far from this that Pape connects <7Tprjvo<; with 
'strenuus;' and whether he does this correctly or 
no there is at any rate always the notion of force, 
vigour, the German < TIebermuth,' such as that dis- 
played by the inhabitants of Sodom (Gen. xix. 4— 
9) implied in the word. On the other hand this 
of effeminacy, brokenness of spirit through self-m- 



NEW TESTAMENT. 19 

diligence, is exactly the point from which Tpv<pr) 
and Tpvcjidv (connected with Opvirrecv and 6pv-\jn<;) 
start ; thus rpvfyrj fcal %XtSrj (Philo, De Merc. Me- 
ret. § 2) ; rpvcj)^ zeal 7ro\vTekeia (Plutarch, Marcus, 3) ; 
cf. Suicer, Thes. s. v. ; note too the company in 
which rpvcf>r) is found (Plato, Alcib. i. 122 h) ; these 
words only running into the notion of the insolent 
as a secondary and rarer meaning. It is thus we 
find united Tpv(f>r} and vfipts (Strabo, vi. 1) ; rpvcfrav 
and vftpi&iv (Plutarch, Prcec. Ger. JSejp. 3) ; and 
compare the line of Menander — 

virep7](pav6v ttov ylved' f] Kiav Tpv<pi\. 

It occasionally from thence passes forward into a 
good sense, and expresses the triumph and exulta- 
tion of the saints of God (Chrysostom, In Matt. 
Horn. 67. 668 ; Isai. lxvi. 11 ; Ps. xxxv. 9). 

XiraTaXav (occurring only 1 Tim. v. 6 ; Jam. v. 
5 ; cf. Ecclus. xxi. 17 ; Ezek. xvi. 49 ; Amos vi. 4, 
the last two being instructive passages), is more 
nearly allied to Tpvcjtav, with which at Jam. v. 5 
it is associated, than with arp^viav, but it brings in 
the further notion of wastefulness (= avdklaiceiv, 
Hesychius), which, consistently with its derivation 
from <nra<o, airaddco, is inherent in the word. Thus 
Hottinger: 'rpvfyav deliciarum est, et exquisitae 
voluptatis, airaraXav luxurias atque prodigalitatis.' 
Tittmann : ' rpvfiav potius mollitiam vitse luxu- 



20 SYNONYMS OF THE 

riosse, airaraXav petulantiani et prodigalitatem de- 
notat.' Theile, who takes them in the reverse 
order, ' Componuntur tanquam antecedens et conse- 
quens; diffluere et dilapidare, luxuriare et lasci- 
vire.' 

It will thus be seen that the GiraicCKav might 
properly be laid to the charge of the Prodigal, scat- 
tering his substance in riotous living {tfhv ao-carco?, 
Luke xv. 13) ; the rpv(f>av to the rich man faring 
sumptuously every day (evcppaivo/ievos fca6' rj/mipav 
\ajjLTrpm, Luke xvi. 19) ; the arprjviav to Jeshurun 
when, waxing fat, he kicked (Dent, xxxii. 15). 



§ v. — 6\fyt<$, crrevo^copia. 

These words are often joined together. Thus 
G-Tevoxwpia, occurring only four times in the !N". T., 
occurs thrice in association with OXtyis (Rom. ii. 9 ; 
viii. 5 ; 2 Cor. vi. 4 ; cf. Isai. viii. 22 ; xxx. 6). So 
too the verbs OXifteiv and arevoxcopelv, 2 Cor. iv. 8 ; 
cf. Lucian, Nigrin. 13 ; Arteroidorus, i. 79 ; ii. 37). 
From the antithesis of the last-mentioned scriptural 
passage, 6\ij36iievoi, akX ov arevo'xppoviievoi, and 
from the fact that wherever in the N". T. the two 
words occur together, crrevoxcopia always occurs 
last, we may conclude that, whatever is the differ- 
ence of meaning, o-revoxfopla is the stronger word. 



NEW TESTAMENT. 21 

They indeed express very nearly the same thing, 
but under changed images. @\tycs, which we find 
joined with fido-avos, Ezek. xii. 18, is properly 
pressure, i pressura,' ' tribulatio,' — which last in 
Church Latin had a metaphorical sense, and in- 
deed belongs to Church Latin alone, — that which 
presses upon, or burdens the spirit — I should have 
said 'angor,' the more that Cicero (Tusc. iv. 8) 
explains this ' aegritudo jpremens] but that the con- 
nexion of ' angor' with ' Angst,' ' enge ' (see Grimm, 
Worterhueh, s. v. Angst) makes it better to reserve 
this for (TTevo^aypia. 

The proper meaning of this latter word is nar- 
rowness of room, confined space, i angustise,' and 
then the painfullness of which this is the occasion : 
airopia arevrj and arevo^copia occur together, Isai. 
viii. 22. It is used literally by Thucydides, vii. 70 ; 
being sometimes exchanged for (W%&)/)ta ; by Plu- 
tarch (Symp. v. 6) set over against avecris : and in 
the Septuagint expresses the straitness of a siege 
(Deut. xxviii. 53, 57). It is once employed in a 
secondary and metaphorical sense in the O. T. 
{crTevoywp^ irvevjxaTOs, Wisd. v. 3), this being the 
only sense in which it is employed in the New. 
The fitness of this image is attested by the frequency 
with which on the other hand a state of joy is ex- 
pressed in the Psalms and elsewhere as a bringing 
into a large room {evpv^copla, Marcus Antoninus, 



22 SYNONYMS OF THE 

ix. 32), I do not know whether Aquinas intended 
an etymology, but he certainly nttered a truth, 
when he said, ' lastitia est quasi latitia ; ' compare 
the use of irXaTvcr/jLo? by the Greek Fathers ; as by 
Origen, De Orat. 30. 

When, according to the ancient law of England, 
those who wilfully refused to plead, had heavy 
weights placed on their breasts, and were so pressed 
and crushed to death, this was literally OXtyis. 
When Bajazet, having been vanquished by Tamer- 
lane, was carried about by him in an iron cage, this 
was crrevo^copla : or, as we do not know that any 
suffering there ensued from actual narrowness of 
room, we may more fitly adduce the oubliettes in 
which Louis the Eleventh shut up his victims ; or 
the ' little-ease ' by which, according to Lingard, the 
Roman Catholics in Queen Elizabeth's reign were 
tortured : ' it was of so small dimensions and so 
constructed, that the prisoners could neither stand, 
walk, sit, nor lie in it at full length.' The word 
1 little-ease ' is not in our dictionaries, but grew in 
our early English to a common-place to express any 
condition of extreme discomfort. — For some con- 
siderations on the awful sense in which &ktyi$ and 
arevoxcopla shall be, according to St. Paul's words 
(Rom. ii. 9), alike the portion of the lost, see Ger- 
hard, Log. Tkeoll. xxxi. 6. 52. 



NEW TESTAMENT. 23 



§ vi. — airkovs, a/cipaios, afca/cos, a&o\o$. 

In this group of words we have some of the 
rarest and most excellent graces of the Christian 
character set forth; or perhaps, as it will rather 
prove, the same grace by aid of different images, 
and with only slightest shades of real difference. 

'Aifkovs occurs only twice in the N. T. (Matt. 
vi. 22 ; Luke xi. 34) ; hut aifkoT^ seven times, or 
perhaps eight, always in St. Paul's Epistles, and 
cnfkm once (Jam. i. 5). It would be quite impos- 
sible to improve on ' single ' ' by which our Trans- 
lators have rendered it, being as it is from aifkoay, 
' expando,' c explico,' that which is sjpread out, and 
thus without folds or wrinkles ; exactly opposed to 
the 7roXu7rXo/co? of Job v. 13 ; cf. ' simplex ' (not 
1 sine plicis ' ' without folds ; ' but ' one-folded,' 
' einfaltig,' see Donaldson, Varronianus, p. 390), 
which is its exact representative in Latin, and a 
word, like it, in honourable use. This notion of 
singleness, simplicity, absence of folds, which thus 
lies according to its etymology in aifkovs, is also the 
prominent one in its use — ' animus alienus a ver- 

1 See the learned note in Fritzsche's Commentary on the Romans, 
vol. iii. p. 64, denying that airXoTtis has ever the meaning of liberality, 
which our Translators have so often given it. 



24 SYNONYMS OF THE 

sutia, fraude, simulatione, dolo malo, et studio no- 
cendi aliis' (Suicer). 

That all this lies in the word is manifest from 
those with which we find it connected, as airbvypos 
(Theophrastus) ; yevvalos (Plato, Rep. 3615); fop* 
to? (Plutarch, De Comm. Not 48); aaivOero^ < in- 
composite,' not put together (id. ib. ; Basil, Adv. 
Ewnom. i. 23) ; ^vhrpwros (id. Mom. in Prin. 
Prov. § 7); aatyfc (Alexis, in Meineke's Frag. Com. 
p. 750). But it is still more apparent from the 
words to which it is opposed, as womm'Xo? (Plato, 
Thecet. 146 d) ; irdkveMfi (Phcedrus, 270 d) ; iroXv- 
rpo7ro9 (S#p. ifiw- 364 «); weirXeyfiivcxi (Aristotle, 
Poet. 13); SwrXoiJ? (ib.)] nravroScnros (Plutarch, 
Quom. Ad. ab Am. 7). Ait\6t^ (see 1 Mace. i. 37) 
is in like manner associated with elXueplveia (2 Cor. 
i. 12), with iuaida (Philo, Opif. § 41) ; the two 
words being used indiscriminately in the Septuagint 
to render the Hebrew, which we translate now 
< integrity' (Ps. vii. 8 ; Prov. xix. 1) ; now < simpli- 
city' (2 Sam. xv. 11); again with peyatofvxta 
(Josephus, Antt. vii. 13. 4), with ayadorrj, (Wisd. i. 
1) • is opposed to iroucCkta (Plato, Rep. 404 e), to 
JxvrpoTrla, to mfcovpyta (Theophylact), to koko4- 
deia (Theodoret), to 86X09 (Aristophanes, Plut 
1158). It may further be observed that on (Gen 
xxv. 17) which the Septuagint renders aifXacnos, 
Aquila has rendered airXov,. As is the case with 



NEW TESTAMENT. 25 

at least one other word of the group, and with mul- 
titudes of others expressive of the same ethical quali- 
ties, airXovs comes often to be used of a foolish sim- 
plicity, unworthy of the Christian, who with all his 
simplicity should be fypoviiios as well. It is so used 
by Basil the Great, Ep. 58. 

*Aickpaio<$ (not in the Septuagint) occurs only 
three times in the N. T. (Matt. x. 16 ; Rom. xvi. 
19 ; Phil. ii. 15). A mistaken etymology, namely, 
that it was = aKeparos, and derived from a and 
icepas (cf. Kepat^eiv, ' lsedere '), without horn to push 
or hurt, — one into which even Bengel falls, who at 
Matt. x. 16 has this note: 'atcepcuoi: sine cornu, 
ungula, dente, aculeo,' — has caused our Translators 
on two of these occasions to render it ' harmless.' 
In each case, however, they have put a more correct 
rendering, 6 simple ' in St. Matthew, ' sincere ' in 
Philippians, in the margin. At Rom. xvi. 19 all is 
reversed, and ' simple ' stands in the text, with 
' harmless ' in the margin. The fundamental no- 
tion of a/cipcuos, as of aicrjpcLTos, which has the same 
derivation from a and tcepavvvfic, is the absence of 
foreign admixture: 6 fir) fce/cpap,ivo<; tca/cols, a\X 
a7rXoO? /cat cnroiiciXos (Etym. Mag.). Thus Philo, 
speaking of a boon which Caligula granted to the 
Jews, but with harsh conditions annexed, styles i'c 
a %apt? ovk cucipaios, with manifest reference to this 
its etymology {Be Leg. ad Gai. 42) : ' o/icos, jievroi 
2 



26 SYNONYMS OF THE 

/cat rrjv %apiv Si8ov<z, eScoicev ovk aicepaLov, aX)C 
avapLiga? avrfj Seo? ap>ydke(£>Tepov.' > It is joined by 
Plato with. aftXafSrjs (Rep. i. 312 5), and with 6p66s 
(Polit. 268 &); by Plutarch with vywfc (J.^y. ,$£<%<?. 
31) ; by Clemens Pomanus (1 Cor. ii.) with elXt 
Kpivfe. That, we may say, is a/cepaios, which is in 
it's true and natural conditon (Josephus, Antt. i. 
2. 2) ' integer ; ' in this bordering on oXofcXrjpos, 
although completeness in all the parts is there the 
predominant idea, and not, as here, immunity from 
disturbing elements. 

The word which we have next to consider, 
clkclkos, is to be found only twice in the N. T. 
(Heb. vii. 26 ; Pom. xvi. 18). There are three 
stages in its history, two of which are sufficiently 
marked by its use in these two places ; for the 
third we must seek elsewhere. It is used in its 
very highest sense, predicating in Him to whom 
it is there applied that absence of all evil which 
implies the presence of all good, at Heb. vii. 26, 
being associated there with other noblest epithets, 
and employed of the Son of God Himself. The 
Septuagint, which knows all uses of a/ccweo?, em- 
ploys it sometimes in this nobler sense : thus at 
Job viii. 20, the clkclicos is opposed to the a<re/3)j<; ; 
and at Ps. xxiv. 21 is joined to the eu#>;?, as by 
Plutarch (Quom. in Virt. Prof. 7) to the aco^pov. 
The word at its next stage expresses the same 



NEW TESTAMENT. 27 

absence of all harm, but now contemplated more 
negatively than positively : thus apviov a/cafcov 
(Jer. xi. 19) ; wcuSla/cr] via /cat clkclicos (Plutarch, 
Virt. Mid. 23). The K T. does not supply an ex- 
ample of the word at this its second stage. The 
process by which it comes to signify easily deceived, 
and then too easily deceived, and a/caxia, simplicity 
running into an excess (Aristotle, Bhet. ii. 12), is 
not difficult to trace. He who himself means no 
evil to others, oftentimes fears no evil from others ; 
conscious of truth in his own heart, he believes 
truth in the hearts of all ; a noble quality, yet in a 
world such as ours capable of being pushed too far, 
where, if in malice we are to be children, yet in 
understanding to be men (1 Cor. xiv. 20 ; cf. Matt. 
x. 16) ; if " simple concerning evil," yet " wise unto 
that which is good " (Rom. xvi. 19). The word, as 
employed Rom. xvi. 18, already indicates this con- 
fidence beginning to degenerate into a credulous 
openness to the being deceived and led away from 
the truth (6av/jLacrTUcol teal a/cafcoi, Plutarch, De 
Beet. Bat. Aud. 7 ; cf. Wisd. iv. 12 ; Prov. i. 4 ; 
xiv. 15 ; a/cafco? Trio-revec mravrl \6ya>). For a some- 
what contemptuous use oiaicaKos, see Plato, Timceas, 
91 d, and Stallbaum's note ; but above all, the words 
which the author of the Second Alcibiades puts into 
Socrates' mouth (140 c) : tou? /jlev ifKela-rov avrr^ 
[a(j)pocrvv7]<i\ fiepos e^pvra^; /jLcuvo/jbivov? Kakovfiev, rovs 



SYNONYMS OF THE 



B* oXlyov eXarrov rjXiOlovs real efJLfBpovTrjTovs * ol Be iv 
evcprj/JLordro^ ovb\iacri fiovXo/jbevoi, Karovofid^ecv ol /xev 
fxeyaXo-^rv^ov^;, ol Be evrfdets, erepoi Be aicd/covs real 
aireipovs real eVcou?. 

The second and third of these meanings of 
aKdicot; run so much into one another, are divided 
by so slight and vanishing a line, that it is not won- 
derful if some find rather two stages in the word's 
use than three ; Basil the Great, for example, whose 
words are worth quoting [Horn, in Princ. Prov. 
§ 11) : Aitt&s voovfiev rrjv aKatclav. *H yap rrjv dirb 
ttjs a/jLaprlas dXXorpicoo-LV Xoyio-fiat fcaTopdovfAevrjv, 
koX hud fiaicpds irpocro^rj^ teal fxeXerr)^ roiv dyadcov olov 
riva piCjav ty)<$ tcaiCLas ifcre/jLovres, Kara areprjcriv avrrjs 
iravreXrjy ttjv rod d/cdfcov irpoar^yopiav Be^pfieOa * t) 
atca/cla early rj fiij 7rco tov /ca/cov e/jLireopia Bed veorrjra 
iroXkdtcis t) j3lov Tivbs eiUTrjBevo-iv, direipwv rtvcbv 
7rpo? rivas icaicias Btafceip,evcov. Olov elorl rive? rwv 
rrjv dypoaciav ol/covvrcov, ov/c elBores ra$ ifjuiropifcds 
Kaicovpyias ovBe ra? iv Bitcao-Trjpicp BiaTrXotcds. Tov<$ 
toiovtovs dtcdnovs Xeyofiev, oi>x co? ifc 7Tpoaipeo~ecos 
t?5? Katcias fcexcopLo-fievovs, dXX* go? firj ttco eh irelpav 
tt}? Trovrjpds ef eco? dcpcy/jLevcvs. From all this it will 
be seen that aKatcos has in fact run the same course, 
and has the same history as dirXovs, evrjOrjs, with 
which it is often joined (as by Diodorus Siculus, v 
66), 'bon' (Jean le Bon = Petourdi), ' bonllommie, , 
' silly,' ' simple,' ' einfaltig,' and many more. 



NEW TESTAMENT. 29 

The last word of this beautiful group, aSoXos, 
occurs only once in the N": T. (1 Pet. ii. 2), and is 
there beautifully translated ' sincere,' — " the sincere 
milk of the word ; " see the early English use of 
' sincere ' as unmixed, unadulterated ; and compare, 
for that milk of the word which would not be sin- 
cere, 2 Cor. iv. 2. It does not appear in the Sep- 
tuagint, but aSokcos once (Wisd. vii. 13). Plato 
joins it with vyt^ (Ep. viii. 355 e) ; Philemo 
(Meineke, Fragm. Com. p. 843) with <yvr)crio<$. It 
is difficult to indicate an ethical proyince for this 
word, on which the others of the group have not 
encroached, or, more truly, which they have not 
occupied already. It is indeed impossible. We 
can only regard it as setting forth the same excel- 
lent grace under another image, or on another side. 
Thus if the axa/co? has nothing of the serpent's 
tooth, the a8o\os has nothing of the serpent's guile ; 
if the absence of willingness to hurt, the malice of 
our fallen nature, is predicated of the area/cos, the 
absence of its fraud and deceit is predicated of the 
a8o\o$, the Nathanael " in whom is no guile " (John 
i. 47). And finally, to sum up all, we may say, 
that as the aicaico? (= ' innocens ') has no harmful- 
ness in him, and the aSokos (— ' sincerus ') no guile, 
so the afcepcuos (= ' integer ') no admixture, and the 
a7r\oi)? (= ' simplex ') no folds. 



30 SYNONYMS OE THE 



§ vii. — xpovos, tcaipos. 

These words occur together in several places 
of the !N". T., but always in the plural, %p6voi koX 
Kdipol (Acts i. 7 ; 1 Thess. v. 1) ; and not unfre- 
quently in the Septuagint, "Wisd. vii. 18 ; viii. 8 
(both instructive passages) ; Dan. ii. 21 ; and in the 
singular, Eccles. iii. 1 ; Dan. vii. 12 (but in this last 
passage the reading is doubtful). Grotius (on Acts 
i. 7) conceives the difference between them to con- 
sist merely in the greater length of the XP° vot as 
compared with the itaipoi, and writes : ' XP° VOi sunt 
majora temporum spatia nt anni : tcaipoi minora ut 
menses et dies.' Compare Bengel : ' %povcov partes 
icaipoL? This, if not inaccurate, is insufficient, and 
altogether fails to reach the heart of the matter. 

Xpovos is time, simply contemplated as such ; 
the succession of moments (Matt. xxv. 19 ; Eev. 
x. 6 ; Heb. iv. 7) ; alwvos el/coop klvtjtij, Plato calls it 
(Timceus, 37 d) ; hidar^fia t?}? tov ovpavov tcivrjo-ews, 
Philo (Be Mund. Op. 7) ; the German l Zeitraum^ 
as distinguished from ' Zeitpunkt.' Thus Severianus 
(Suicer, Thes. s. v.) : ^poi/o? firj/cos iari, KaZpos ev- 
Kdipia. Katpos, derived from Ketpco, as c tempus ' 
from ' temno,' is time as it brings forth its several 
births ; thus Kaipos 0epc<r/xov (Matt. xiii. 30) ; /caipbs 
<tvk(ov (Mark xi. 13) ; Christ died Kara naipbv (Bom. 



NEW TESTAMENT. 31 

v. 6) ; and, above all, compare Eccles. iii. 1 — 8. 
Xpovos, it will be seen from this, embraces all possi- 
ble icaipoi, and being the larger, more inclusive 
word, may be often used where /ccupos would have 
been equally suitable, though not vice versa / thus 
Xpovos rod Tetcelv, the time of bringing forth (Luke 
i. 37) ; ifXriptona rod yjpovov (Gal. iv. 4), the fulness, 
or the ripeness, of the time for the manifestation of 
the Son of God, when we should before have rather 
expected rod Kaipov, or ra>v /ccupcov, which last phrase 
does actually occur Ephes. i. 10. So, too, there is 
every reason to think that the yjpbvoi an ofcara- 
o-rdcreG)? of Acts iii. 21 are identical with the icaipoi 
avatyv^ews of the verse preceding. Thus it is possi- 
ble to speak of the icaipbs xpovov, and Sophocles 
{Elect. 1292) does so : 

Xpovov yap av <xoi naipbv i^eipyoi \6yos, 

but not of the xpovos Kaipov ; cf. Olympiodorus 
(Suicer, Thes. s. v. xpovos): ^povos fiev ecrri to 
Bidarrjfjia /cad 1 6 irpdrreTai re ' Kaipbs Be o eTriTrjBeio? 
t?7? ipyao~la$ %p6vos * wcrre 6 fiev xpovos teal Kaipb? 
elvai Bvvaiai' 6 Be Kaipbs ov %p6vo<;, dX)C evKaipia 
rov irpaTrofievov iv %/?oVw yivofievy], Ammonius : o 
aev Kaipbs BrfKol iroi6T7)Ta yjpovov, yjpovos Be irocro- 
TTjra. 

From what has been said, it will be seen that 
when the Apostles ask the Lord, ' Wilt Thou at this 



32 SYNONTUS OF THE 

time restore again the kingdom to Israel ? " and He 
makes answer, " It is not for you to know the times 
or the seasons " (xpovovs r, tcaipovs, Acts i. 6, 7), 
'the times' (xpovoi) are, in Angnstine's words, 
' ipsa spatia temporum,' the spaces of time, contem- 
plated merely under the aspect of its duration, oyer 
which the Clmrch's history shonld extend ; but ' the 
seasons ' {jcaipoi) are the joints, the articulations, in 
this time, the critical epoch-making periods fore- 
ordained of God (jcaipoi 7rpoT6ray/jLevoi, Acts vii. 26), 
when all which has been slowly, and often un- 
markedly, ripening through long ages, is mature 
and comes to the birth in grand decisive events, 
which constitute at once the close of one period and 
the commencement of another ; such, for example, 
was the recognition of Christianity as the religion 
of the Roman Empire ; such the conversion of the 
Germanic tribes settled within the limits of the 
Empire ; such the great revival which went along 
with the first institution of the Mendicant Orders ; 
such, by still better right, the Reformation ; such, 
above all, the second coming of the Lord (Dan. vii. 
22). 

It would seem as if the Latin had no word by 
which exactly to render naipoi. Augustine com- 
plains of this (Ep. cxcvii. 2) : ' Grs&ee legitur 
Xpovov? rj Kaipovs. !Nostri autem utrumque hoc 
verbum tempora appellant, give XP° V0V< >> ^ VQ 



NEW TESTAMENT. 33 

tccupovs, cum liabeant hsec duo inter se non negli- 
gendam diiFerentiam ; Kaipovs quippe appellant 
Graece tempora quasdam, non tamen quae in spa- 
tiorum voluminibns transeunt, sed quas in rebus ad 
aliquid opportunis vel importunis sentiuntur, sicut 
messis, vindemia, calor, frigus, pax, bellum, et si 
qua similia: xpovovs autem ipsa spatia temporum 
vocant.' Bearing out this complaint of bis, we find 
in the Vulgate the most various renderings of 
tccupoi, as often as it occurs in combination with 
Xpovoo, and cannot therefore be rendered by ' tem- 
pora,' which XP° V0L nas generally preoccupied. 1 
Thus ' tempora et momenta ' (Acts i. 7 ; 1 Thess. 
v. 1), ' tempora et estates ' (Dan. ii. 21), ' tempora 
et saecula' (Wisd. viii. 8); while a modern Latin 
commentator on the 1ST. T. has ' tempora et articuli ;' 
Bengel, ' intervalla et tempora.' It might be urged 
that ' tempora et opportunitates ' would fulfil all 
conditions. This, however, is not so. Augustine 
has anticipated this suggestion, but only to acknow- 
ledge its insufficiency, on the ground that ' oppor- 
tunitas ' (= c opportunum tempus ') is a convenient, 
favourable season, evicaipia ; while the Kaipbs may 
be the most inconvenient, most unfavourable of all, 
the essential notion of it being that it is the critical 

1 Yet not perhaps very correctly, for in the common Latin phrase 
' dies tempusque,' it is dies which answers to XP '*' *? an< ^ tempus to 
Kaipos ; see Doderlein, Lat. Syn. ir. 267. 
2* 



34 SYNONYMS OF THE 

nick of time ; but whether, as such, to make or to 
mar, effectually to help or effectually to hinder, the 
word determines not at all (' sive opportuna, sive 
importuna sint tempora, tccupoi dicuntur '). 



§ viii. — (pepco, cfropico. 

On the distinction between these words Lobeck 
(Ph?ynichus, p. 585) has the following remarks : 
'Inter (f>epco et <f>opecQ hoc interesse constat, quod 
ilmd actionem simplicem et transitoriam, hoc antem 
actionis ejnsdem continnationem significat; verbi 
causa ayyeXl^v cfyepetv, est alicujus rei nuncium 
afferre, Herod, iii. 53 et 122; v. 14; ayyekfyv 
cfropeeiv, iii. 34, nnncii munere apnd aliquem fungi. 
Hinc et <popelp dicimur ea quae nobiscum circum- 
ferimus, quibus amicti indutique snmus, nt ipbariov, 
TpijSooviov, hatcrvktov cjiopelv, turn qu£e ad habitum 
corporis pertinent.' He proceeds, however, to ac- 
knowledge that this is a rule by no means con- 
stantly observed even by the best Greek authors. 
It is, therefore, the more noticeable, as an example 
of the accuracy which so often takes us by surprise 
in the use of words by the writers of the !N". T., that 
this rule is there exactly observed. The only places 
where cfyopelv occurs are the following, Matt. xi. 8 ; 



NEW TESTAMENT. 36 

John xix. 5 ; Kom. xiii. 4 ; 1 Cor. xv. 49, lis / Jam. 
ii. 3 ; and in all these it expresses, not an accidental 
and temporary, but a regular and continuous bear- 
ing. ' Sic enim differt cpopeiv a fyepeiv nt hoc sit 
ferre, illud ferre solere ' (Fritzsche on Matt. xi. 8). 
Cf. Prov. iii. 16, where of the heavenly Wisdom it 
is said, vo/aov Be /ecu eXeov eirl <yXa)<Tcrr)<; cfropei — she 
bears these on her tongue, and bears them ever- 
more. 

A sentence in Plutarch (Apoth. Reg.), in which 
both words occur, illustrates very well their differ- 
ent uses : of Xerxes he records, 6pyi(r6eh Be BajSv- 
Xcoviols diroaTacri, zeal Kparrjaa^, irpocrtTa^ev oirXa 
/LL7j (pepetv, dXXd tydXXeiv teal avXelv teal 7ropvo{3o- 
(Tfcelv zeal Kairrfkeveiv, zeal cf>opelv zcoXttcdtovs yjjTwvas. 
Arms would only be borne at intervals, therefore 
cpepecv ; but garments are habitually worn, therefore 
this is in the second clause exchanged for (popelv. 



§ ix. — fcocrfios, aicov. 

The first of these words our Translators have, I 
believe, always rendered 'world;' and the second 
often, though by no means exclusively, so ; thus 
(not to speak of eh alcova) see Ephes. ii. 2, 7 ; Col. 
i. 26. It is certainly a question whether we might 



36 SYNONYMS OF THE 



we have employed it but rarely, — only, indeed, in 
the two places which I have cited last. ' Age ' may 
sound to us inadequate now ; but it is quite possi- 
ble that, so used, it would little by little have ex- 
panded and acquired a larger, deeper meaning than 
it now possesses. One cannot but regret that by 
this or some other like device, our Translators did 
not mark the difference between words conveying, 
to a considerable extent, different ideas; /coayxo? 
being the world contemplated under aspects of 
space, alcbv under aspects of time, — koct/jlos ' mun- 
dus,' and alcov i seculum ; ' for the Latin, like the 
Greek, has two words, where we have, or have 
acted as though we had, but one. In all those 
passages, such as Matt. xiii. 39; 1 Cor. x. 11, which 
speak of the end or consummation of the ala>v (there 
are none which speak of the end of the koct/jlos;), as 
in others which speak of " the wisdom of this world " 
(1 Cor. ii. 6), " the god of this world " (ib. iv. 4), 
" the children of this world " (Luke xvi. 8), it must 
be admitted that we are losers by the course which 
we have adopted. 

K6o-[xo<s, connected with fco/jieiv, ' comere,' ' comp- 
tus,' is a word with a history of very great interest 
in more aspects than one. Suidas traces four suc- 
cessive significations through which the word pass- 
ed : (T7]/jLaiveL 8e 6 k6(t/jlo<; ricraapa, evirpeireiav, rohe 



NEW TESTAMENT. 37 

to Trdv, tt]V rafyv, to irXrjdos irapa Ty Tpatyfj. Hav- 
ing originally the meaning of ' ornament,' ok fining 
this meaning once in the N". T. (1 Pet. iii 3 ; cf. 
Ecclus. xliii. 9), from this it passed to 1hat of 
' order,' ' arrangement,' (' lucidus ordo ') f beauty,' 
as springing out of these ; evirpeireia and Ta%is, as 
Suidas gives it above, or as Hesychius, KaXkcoirc- 
cryLto?, KWTaGKevr), Tat;i$, KaTaaTacris, KaKko r , . Pytha- 
goras is said to have been the first who transferred 
and applied the word to the sum total of the mate- 
rial universe, desiring thereby to express his sense 
of the beauty and order which everywhere reigned 
in it ; see Plutarch, De Plac. Phil. i. 5 ; and for a 
history of this transfer, a note in Humboldt's Cos- 
mos. ' Mundus ' in Latin, — ' digestio et ordinatio 
singularum quarumque rerum formatarum et dis- 
tinctarum,' Augustine {De Gen. ad Lit. c. 3) calls 
it, — followed, as is familiar to all, in the same track ; 
giving occasion to plays of words, such as ' O munde 
immunde,' in which the same great Church teacher 
delights. Thus Pliny (H. J¥. ii. 3) : ' Quern Kocrpov 
Grseci nomine ornamenti appellaverunt, eum nos a 
perfecta absolutaque elegantia mundum ; ' cf. Cicero, 
De Nat. Deor. ii. 22. From this signification of 
tcoo-fjLos as the material world, which is not uncom- 
mon in Scripture (Matt. xiii. 35 ; John xxi. 25 ; 
Rom. i. 20), followed that of /coo-pLos as the sum 
total of the men living in the world (John i. 29 * 



38 SYNONYMS OF THE 

iv. 42; 2 Cor. v. 19), and then npon this, and 
ethically, those not of the i/vcX^a-ia, 1 the alienated 
from the life of God (John i. 10 ; 1 Cor. i. 20, 21 ; 
Jam. iv. 4 ; 1 John iii. 13). On this threefold nse 
of /coo-fios, and the serious confusions which, if not 
carefully watched against, may arise therefrom, see 
Augustine, Con. Jul. Pel. vi. § 3, 4. 

But alcov, connected with del, though scarcely 
alev cov (Aristotle), has in like manner a primary, 
and then, superinduced on this, a secondary and 
ethical, sense. In its primary, it signifies time, 
short or long, in its unbroken duration ; oftentimes 
in classical Greek the duration of a human life 
(= /3lo$, for which it is exchanged, Xenophon, 
Cyrqp. iii. 3. 24) ; but essentially time as the con- 
dition under which all created things exist, and the 
measure of their existence. Thus Theodoret : 6 alcov 
ovk ovcrla T£? icrrlv, aXX avvTrocrTCLTOv ^pri/ma, ctv/j,- 
7rapofiaprovv tols yevwjTrjv e%ovcr(, cfyvcriv. KaXelrai 
<ydp alcov /cal to airo ttJ? tov /cocr/xov crvo-Tdcrecos fie^pu 
rr)<s crvvTeXela? BcdcrT7]fjLa. — alcov rolvvv icrrl to tj} 
KTLcrTf) cpvo-eo irape^evyfievov hidaT^^a. But thus 
signifying time, it comes presently to signify all 
which exists in the world under conditions of time ; 
' die Totalitat desjenigen, was sich in derDauer der 

1 Origen indeed [hi Joan. vi. 38) mentions some one in his day who 
interpreted k6o-/j.os as the Church, being as it is the ornament of the 
world (k6<tjaos ovaa rod icocr/j.ov). 



NEW TESTAMENT. 39 

Zeit ausserlich darstellt, die "Welt, so fern sie sicli in 
der Zeit bewegt ' (Bleek) ; and then, more ethically, 
the course and current of this world's affairs. This 
course and current being full of sin, it is nothing 
wonderful that alcov ovtos, like /cooy-to?, acquires 
presently in Scripture an evil significance ; the 
fiaaCkeiai tov koct/jlov of Matt. iv. 8 are fiaaikeicu 
tov alcovos tovtov in Ignatius (Ep. ad Bom. 6) ; God 
has delivered us by his Son ef ivearcoTos alcovo? 
Trovrjpou (Gal. i. 4) ; Satan is Oebs tov alcovos tovtov 
(2 Cor. iv. 4) ; cf. Ignatius, JSp. ad Magn. 1 : 6 
ap^cov tov alcovos tovtov) ; sinners walk kclto, tov 
alcova tov kocf/jlov tovtov, too weakly translated in 
our Yersion, as in all preceding, " the course of this 
world " (Ephes. ii. 2). The last is a specially in- 
structive passage, seeing that in it both the words 
which we are discriminating occur together ; Bengel 
excellently remarking, • alcov et k6o-/jlo<; differunt. 
Ille hunc regit et quasi informat : koct/jlos est quid- 
dam exterius, alcov subtilius. Tempus [= alcov] 
dicitur non solum physice, sed etiam moraliter, con- 
notata qualitate hominum in eo viventium ; et sic 
alcov dicit longam temporum seriem, ubi setas mala 
malam setatem excipit.' Compare "Windischmann 
(on Gal. i. 4) : i alcov darf aber durchaus nicht bloss 
als Zeit gefasst werden, sondern begreift alles in der 
Zeit befangene ; die Welt und ihre Herrlichkeit, die 
Menschen und ihr natiirliches unerlostes Thun und 



40 SYNONYMS OF THE 

Treiben in sieh, ini Contraste zu dem hier nur be- 
ginnenden, seiner Sehnsucht mid Yollendung nach 
aber jenseitigen und ewigen, Reiche des Messias.' 
We speak of ' the times,' attaching to the word an 
ethical signification ; or, still more to the point, 
' the age,' ' the spirit or genius of the age,' ' der 
Zeitgeist.' All that floating mass of thoughts, opin- 
ions, maxims, speculations, hopes, impulses, aims, 
at any time current in the world, which it is im- 
possible to seize and accurately define, but which 
constitute a most real and effective power, being 
the moral, or immoral, atmosphere which at every 
moment of our lives we inhale, again inevitably to 
exhale, — all this is included in the alaiv, which is, as 
Bengel expressed it, the subtle, informing spirit of 
the /cocr/xo?, or world of men who are living alienated 
and apart from God. ' Seculum,' in Latin, has 
acquired the same sense, as in that well-known 
phrase of Tacitus {Germ. 19), ' Corrumpere et cor- 
rumpi seculum vocatur.' 

While it is thus with alcov in all the other pas- 
sages where it occurs in the 1ST. T., it must be freely 
admitted that there are two in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews which constitute exceptions to the expla- 
nation here given, and to the distinction here drawn 
between it and fcoo-fios, namely i. 2 and xi. 8. In 
both of- these alcoves are the worlds contemplated, if 
not entirely, yet beyond question mainly, under 



NEW TESTAMENT. 4.1 

other aspects than those of time. Some, indeed, 
especially modern Socinian expositors, thongh not 
without forerunners who had no such motives as 
theirs, have attempted to explain alcoves in the first 
of these passages, as the successive dispensations, the 
Xpovoi kcu Kaipoi of the divine economy. But what- 
ever doubt might have existed, had this verse stood 
alone, the parallel xi. 3 is decisive, that the alcoves 
can only be, as we have rendered the word, 'the 
worlds,' and not ' the ages.' I have said these two 
are the only exceptions, for I cannot accept 1 Tim. 
i. 17 as a third ; where alcoves seems to denote, not 
' the worlds ' in the usual concrete meaning of the 
term, but, according to the more usual temporal 
meaning of alcov in the E". T., 4 the ages,' the tem- 
poral periods whose sum and aggregation adumbrate 
the conception of eternity. The ftavikevs tcov alcovcov 
will thus be the sovereign dispenser and disposer of 
the ages of the world (see Ellicott, in loco). 1 

1 Our English ' world,' as far as the etymology goes, more nearly 
represents alav than koct/xos. The old ' weralt,' or ' weralti ' (in modern 
German ' welt '), is composed of two words, ' wer,' man, and ' alti, 
age or generation. The ground-meaning, therefore, of ' weralt ' is 
generation of men. Out of this expression of time unfolds itself that 
of space, as aldov passed into the meaning of Koa-fxos (Grimm, Deutsche 
Myth. p. 752) ; but in the earliest German records it is used, first as 
an expression of time, and only derivatively as one of space. See 
Rudolf von Raumer, Die Einwirkung des Christenthums auf die Alt 
hochdeutsche Sprache, 1845, p. 3*75. 



d£ SYNONYMS OF THE 



§ x. — veos, tcaivos* 

We translate both these words by the one Eng- 
lish word ' new, 5 and there are those who deny that 
any difference can in the New Testament be traced 
between them. They derive a certain plansible 
support for this assertion from the fact that mani- 
festly z/eo? and /caivos oftentimes are interchange- 
ably used ; thus veo<$ avOpcoiros (Col. iii. 10), ' the 
new man,' and kcuvos avOpauro^; (Eph. ii. 15), ' the 
new man ' also ; via Siadrj/crj (Heb. xii. 24) and 
Kaivr] Biadrjfcr) (Heb. ix. 15), both 'a new cove- 
nant ; ' veos oho? (Matt. ix. 17) and /caivb? olvo? 
(Matt. xxvi. 29). The words, it is urged, are evi- 
dently of the same force and significance. But this 
does not follow, and in fact is not so. The same 
covenant may be qualified as via or Kaivi], but it is 
contemplated from a different point of view, accord- 
ing as it has one epithet applied to it or the other. 
It is the same in the other instances adduced : the 
same man, or the same wine, may be vios or kcllvos • 
but a different notion is predominant according as 
the one epithet is applied or the other, and it will 
not be hard presently to demonstrate as much. 

Contemplate the new under the aspects of time, 
as that which has more recently come into exist- 



NEW TESTAMENT. 43 

ence, and this is veos (see Pott, Etymol. Forsch. 
2d ed. vol. i. p. 290—292). Thus the young are 
continually ol vkoi, or ol vecorepoL, the generation 
which has lately sprung up ; so, too, vkoi 6eol, the 
younger race of gods, Jupiter, Apollo, and other 
Olympians (JEschylus, Prom. Vinct. 991, 996), as 
set over against Saturn, Ops, and the dynasty of 
elder deities whom they had dethroned. But con- 
template the new, not under the aspect of time, but 
of quality, the new, as set over against that which 
has seen service, the outworn, the exhausted or 
marred through age, and this is kclivos : thus fccuvbv 
IfxaTiov (Luke v. 36), 'a new garment,' as contrasted 
with one threadbare and outworn ; kolivoX aa/col, 
' new wine-skins ' (Matt. ix. 17; John ix. 19) ; and 
in this sense, kclivos ovpavos (2 Pet. iii. 13), ' a new 
heaven,' as set over against that which has waxen 
old, and shows signs of decay and dissolution (Heb. 
i. 11, 12). In like manner, tcaivai yXaxraai (Mark 
xvi. 17) does not express the recent commencement 
of this miraculous speaking with tongues, but the 
unlikeness of these tongues to any that went before, 
therefore called also erepai <y\cocrcrao (Acts ii. 4), 
tongues different from any hitherto known. Thus 
also, that tcaivbv fivrj/ielov, in which Joseph of 
Arimathea laid the body of our Lord (Matt, xxvii. 
60), is not one lately hewn from the rock, but one 
which had never yet been used, in which no other 



4A SYNONYMS OF THE 

dead had ever lain, making the place ceremonially 
unclean (Matt, xxiii. 27). It might have been 
hewn out a hundred years before, and would thus 
have forfeited its right to the epithet veo<$, but if 
never turned to use before it would be kclivqs still. 
That it should be so was part of that divine decorum 
which ever attended the Lord in the midst of the 
humiliations of His earthly life (cf. Luke xix. 30 ; 
1 Sam. vi. T ; 2 Kin. ii. 20). 

It will be seen from what has been said that 
kclivo? will often, as a secondary notion, imply 
praise, for the new is commonly better than the 
old ; thus, everything is new in heaven, " the new 
Jerusalem " (Rev. iii. 12) ; "a new song " (v. 9) ; 
"a new heaven and new earth" (xxi. 1, cf. 2 Pet. 
iii. 13) ; " all things new " (xxi. 5). But this not 
of necessity; for it is not always, and in every- 
thing, that the new is better, but sometimes the 
old; thus, the old friend (Ecclus. ix. 10), and the 
old wine (Luke v. 39), are better than the new. 
And in many other cases kclivos may express only 
the novel and strange, as contrasted, and that un- 
favourably, with the known and the familiar. Thus 
I observed just now that vkoi Qkoi was a title given 
to the younger generation of gods ; but when it 
was brought as a charge against Socrates that he 
had sought to introduce kclivovs 6eov$, or /cawa Sat- 
yubvia into Athens (Plato, Apol. 26 5, cf. %kva Sat- 



NEW TESTAMENT. 45 

fjbovia, Acts xvii. 18), something quite different 
from this was meant — a novel pantheon, such gods 
as Athens had not hitherto been accustomed to 
worship. So, too, they who exclaim of Christ's 
teaching, " What new doctrine \jcawr) 8i8axrj~\ is 
this ? " mean anything but praise (Mark i. 27). 

Follow up these words into their derivatives and 
compounds, and it will be found that the same dis- 
tinction comes yet more clearly out: thus, veorrjs 
(1 Tim. iv. 12) is youth ; kcuvott)? (Rom. vi. 4) is 
newness ; veoeihifc, of youthful appearance ; kcli- 
voeihrjs, of novel unusual appearance ; veoXoyla (if 
there had existed such a word) would have been, a 
younger growth of words as contrasted with the old 
stock of the language, or, as we say, ' neologies ; ' 
fcaLvo\oyla, which does exist in the later Greek, a 
novel anomalous invention of words, constructed on 
different principles from those which the language 
had recognized hitherto ; <j)i,\6veos, a lover of youth 
(Lucian, Amor. 24) ; fyCkoicaivos, a lover of novelty 
(Plutarch, De Mus. 12). 

There is a passage in Polybius (v. 75, 4), as 
there are many elsewhere (Clement of Alexandria, 
Pcedag. i. 5, will supply one), in which the words 
occur together ; but neither in this are they em- 
ployed as a mere rhetorical accumulation : each has 
its own special significance. Relating a stratagem 
by which the town of Selge was very nearly sur- 



46 SYNONYMS OF THE 

prised and taken, Polybius makes this observation, 
that, notwithstanding the many cities which have 
evidently been lost through the same device, we 
are, some way or other, still new and young in 
regard of similar deceits {jcaivoi rives alel /cal vkoi 
7rpo? ra? roiavra? aTTara? 7re(f)VKafiev), and ready 
to be deceived by them over again. Here /eaivoi is 
an epithet applied to men in respect to their raw- 
ness and inexperience, vkoi in respect to their youth. 
It is true that these two, inexperience and youth, 
go often together ; thus vkos and aireipos are joined 
by Plutarch (De Red. Rat. And. 17) ; but this is 
not of necessity. An old man may be raw and 
unpractised in the affairs of the world, therefore 
tcaivos : there have been many young men, vkoi as 
regarded age, who were well skilled and exercised 
in these. 

Apply the distinction here drawn, and it will 
be manifest that the same w T ine, or the same man, 
may be at once vkos and kciivqs, and yet different 
meanings may be, and may have been intended to 
be, conveyed, as the one word was used, or the 
other. Take for example the vkos avdpcoiros of 
Col. iii. 10, and the /caivbs avOpayjros of Ephes. 
ii. 15. Contemplate under the aspect of time that 
mighty change which has found and is finding 
place in the man who has become obedient to the 
truth, and you will call him subsequently to this 



NEW TESTAMENT. 47 

change, i/eo? avOpuiro^'. the old man in him, and it 
well deserves this name, for it dates as far back as 
Adam, has died ; a new man has been born, who 
therefore is fitly called vio?. But, on the other 
hand, contemplate, not now under aspects of time, 
but of quality and condition, this same mighty 
transformation ; behold the man who, through long 
contact with the world, inveterate habits of sinning, 
had grown outworn and old, casting off the old con- 
versation, as the snake its shrivelled skin, coming 
forth again a new creation (tccuirij ktlctis), from his 
heavenly Maker's hands, with a irvevj.ia icaivbv given 
to him (Ezek. xi. 18), and you have here the icaivo^ 
av6p(Diros, one prepared to walk in newness of 
life (iv kcuvojtjtl £o>?}?, Rom. vi. 4) through the 
ava/caivcocri,*; of the Spirit (Tit. iii. 5); compare the 
Epistle of Barnabas, 16, iyev6/ji€0a kclivoi, iraKiv eg 
apXVS KTityfievoi. Often as the words in this appli- 
cation would be interchangeable, yet there are also 
times when they would not be so. Take for in- 
stance the saying of Clement of Alexandria (Peed. 
i. 6), %pr) yap elvai kclivovs Aoyov tcaivov fierei\rj^)6- 
ras. How impossible it would be to substitute 
viovs or viov here. Take, again, the verbs avaveovv 
(Ephes. iv. 23), and avatcawovv (Col. iv. 10). We 
have need avaveovaOat,, and we have need avaiccu- 
vovaOai. It is indeed the same mysterious process, 
to be brought about by the same almighty Agent ; 



48 



SYNONYMS OF THE 



but it is the same regarded from different points of 
view ; avaveovaOai, to be made young again, ava- 
KaivovaOai, to be made new again. 

Apply this in the other instances quoted above. 
New wine may be characterized as vios or kclivos, 
but from different points of view. As it is z/eo?, it 
is tacitly contrasted with the vintage of past years ; 
as it is icaivbs, we may assume it austere and strong, 
in contrast with that which is xpncrTos, sweet and 
mellow through, age (Luke v. 39). So too, the 
Covenant of which Christ is the Mediator is a 
hiaOrjicri vea, as compared with the Mosaic covenant, 
given nearly two thousand years before; it is a 
hiaOrjKr] Kaivr) as compared with the same, effete 
with age, and from which all vigour, energy, and 
strength had departed (Heb. viii. 13). 

A Latin grammarian, drawing the distinction 
between ' recens ' and ' novus,' has said, ' Recens ad 
temp us, novum ad rem refertur.' Substituting z/eo? 
and icaivbs, we might say, ' veos ad tempus, kclivos ad 
rem refertur,' and should thus grasp in a few words, 
easily remembered, the distinction between them at 
its central point. 1 

1 Lafage {Diet, des Synonymes, p. *798) claims the same distinc- 
tion for 'nouveau' (= yeos), and 'neuf' (= Kaivos). ' Ce qui est 
nouveau went de paraitre pour la premiere fois : ce qui est neuf vient 
d'etre fait et n'a pas encore servi. Une invention est nouvclle, une 
expression neuve? 



NEW TESTAMENT. 49 



§ xi. — fiiOrj, kotos, olvofyXvyia, Ktopos, /cpanrdkrj. 

31 €0r), occurring in the N. T. at Luke xxi. 34 ; 
Rom. xiii. 13 ; Gal. v* 21 ; and kotos, found only at 
1 Pet. iv. 3, are distinguishable as an abstract and 
a concrete. MiOrj, defined by Clement of Alex- 
andria, aKpaTov %prjo~i<; crcpoBpoTepa, is drunkenness 
(Joel i. 5 ; Ezek. xxxix. 19) ; kotos (= evco^la 
Hesychius, cf. Polybius, ii. 4. 6), the drinking bout, 
the symposium, not of necessity excessive (Gen. 
xix. 3 ; 2 Sam. iii. 20), which gives opportunity for 
this (1 Sam. xxv. 36 ; Xenophon, Anab. vii. 3, 13 ; 
iirel 7rpov%a>pei o kotos). MeOrj is stronger and 
expresses a worse excess than ocvcoans, from which 
it is distinguished by Plutarch, De Garr. 4 ; Syrwp. 
iii. 1. 

The next word in this group, olvocfrXvyla, occurs 
only 1 Pet. iv. 3, where we translate it " excess of 
wine," and never in the Septuagint ; but olvocpXv- 
yelv, Deut. xxi. 20 ; Isai. lvi. 12. It is certainly 
a step in advance of piOrj, see Philo De JEbriet. 8 ; 
and De Merc. Mer. 1, where he names olvocpXvyia 
among the vfipeis eayarai, and compare Xenophon 
(CEcon. i. 22) ; hovXoi Xiyyeiwv, Xayvei&v, olvofyXv- 
ytcov. In strict definition it is eKiOvpia oivov amXr)- 
gtos (Andronicus of Rhodes), amX^pwTos iKiQvpia, 
3 



50 SYNONYMS OF THE 

as Philo ( Vit. 3£os. iii. 22) calls it ; the German 
' Trinksucht ; ' bat we find it commonly used for a 
debauch. I know no single word which would bet- 
ter render it, being as it is an extravagant indulgence 
in potations long drawn out (see Basil, Horn, in 
Ebviosos, 7), such as may induce permanent mis- 
chiefs on the body (Aristotle, Eth. JVic. iii. 5. 15) ; 
as did for instance that fatal one to which Arrian, 
according to one report current in antiquity, in- 
clines to ascribe the death of Alexander the Great 
(vii. 24. 25). 

Kgj/jlos (used in the plural on the three occasions 
when it is found in the N. T.) rendered once ' riot- 
ing' (Rom. xiii. 13), and twice 'revelling' (Gal. v. 
21 ; 1 Pet. iv. 3), may be said to unite in itself both 
these notions, namely, of riot, and of revelry. It is 
the Latin ' comissatio,' which, as is well known, is 
connected with tecofid^eiv, not with ' comedo.' Thus, 
k&ijlos teal acrcoTia (2 Mace, vi. 4) ; ttotoi teal kco/jlol 
teal OaXiai dteaipot, (Plutarch, Pyrrli. 16 ; i/ifiavel^ 
teco/jLOL (Wisd. xiv. 23); cf. Philo, Be Cher. 27, 
where we have a striking description of the com- 
pany which it and /liOrj keep, of the other vices 
with which these are associated the most nearly. 
At the same time km/jlos is often in a more special 
sense the troop of drunken revellers (' comissantium 
agmen,' Blomfield, Agamemnon 1160, where the 
troop of Puries, as drunk with blood, obtain this 



NEW TESTAMENT. 51 

name), who at the late close of a revel, with gar- 
lands on their heads, and torches in their hands, 1 
with shout and song 2 (aw/ao? koX /3od, Plutarch, 
Alexander, 38), pass to the harlots' houses, or other- 
wise wander through the streets, with insult and 
wanton outrage for any whom they meet ; cf. 
Meineke, Fragm. Com. Grcec. p. 617. It is evident 
that Milton had the k&jjlos in his eye in those lines 
of his — 

' when night 
Darkens the streets, then wander forth the sons 
Of Belial, flown with insolence and wine.'* 

Plutarch {Alex. 37) characterized as a #<y^o? the 
mad drunken march of Alexander and his army 
through Carmania, returning from their Indian 
expedition. 

KpcuTraXr), the Latin 'crapula,' though with a 
more limited signification (rj yQeawr) [xedrj, Arnmo- 
nius), is a word concerning the derivation of which 
nothing certain has been arrived at. We have ren- 
dered it ' surfeiting ' at Luke xxi. 34, being the 
single occasion on which it occurs in the 1ST. T. In 

1 eoi/ce iirl ku/aov ficu5i£etv. 

(paiuerai. 
(TT€cpav6y ye toi Kal SaS 5 %x° iV iropeverat. 

Aristoph, Pint 1040. 

2 Theophylact makes these songs themselves the KuiLtoi, defining 
the word thus : to [xera fxeOris ical vfipecas acr/xotra. 



52 SYNONYMS OF THE 

the Septuagint it is never found, but the verb 
tcpaiTraXdco twice (Ps. lxxvii. 65 ; Isai. xxix. 9). 
' Fulsomeness,' in the early sense of that word (see 
my Select Glossary of English Words, s. v. ' ful- 
some '), would express it very well, with only the 
drawback that by ' fulsomeness ' might be indicated 
the disgust and loathing from overfulness of meat 
as well as of wine, while Kpanr&Xr) expresses only 
the latter ; thus Plutarch, Prcec. San. 11 : irXrj- 
a/Movr) r) tcpanraXv. It is, as Clement of Alexandria 
{Peed. ii. 2) defines it, rj iirl rfj fieOj] Bvo-apecrrrjo-cq 
/cal arjhla : and with it this series of words may fitly 
close. 



§ xii. — KaTnjXevG), SoXoco. 

In two passages, standing very near to one 
another in St. Paul's Second Epistle to the Corin 
thians, he avouches of himself that he is not " as 
many who corrupt (icaTnfkevovTes) the word of God " 
(ii. 17) ; and presently again he disclaims being of 
them who can be accused of " handling the word 
of God deceitfully " (SoXovvres, iv. 2) ; these being 
the only occasions on which either of these words 
is employed in the "N. T. It is evident, not less 
from the context than from the character of the 



NEW TESTAMENT. 53 

words themselves, that the notions which they ex- 
press must lie very near to one another ; oftentimes 
it is said or assumed that they are absolutely iden- 
tical, as by all translators who render the two Greek 
words in the same way<; by the Yulgate, for in- 
stance, which has ' adulterantes ' in both places ; by 
Chrysostom, who explains Kairrfkeveiv as = voOevetv. 
But I am persuaded that, on nearer inspection, it 
will be found that while tcaTrrjkevovTes covers all that 
hdkovvres does, it also covers something more, and 
this, whether in the literal sense, or transferred figu- 
rative in which it is used by the Apostle ; even as 
it is quite plain that our own Translators, whether 
with any very clear insight into the distinction be- 
tween the words or not, certainly did not acquiesce 
in the obliteration of all distinction between them. 

The history of Kairtfkeveiv is not difficult to 
trace. The Kairrfkos is properly the huckster or 
petty trader, as set over against the einropos who 
sells his wares not in retail but in the gross. But 
while the word may be applied to any such pedlar, 
the K&Trrfko? is predominantly the vendor in retail 
of wine (Plato, Gorg. 518 ; Lucian, Hermot. 58). 
Exposed to many and strong temptations, into 
which it was easy for them to fall (Ecclus. xxvi. 
29), as to mix their wine with water (Isai. i. 22), 
or otherwise to tamper with it, to sell it in short 
measure, these men so generally yielded to these 



54 SYNONYMS OF THE 

temptations, that KaiTr[ko<$ and KairTJkeveiv, like 
6 caupo ' and ' cauponari,' became words of con- 
tempt ; KdTnjkeveiv being the making of any shame- 
ful traffic and gain as the KairrjXos does (see Becker, 
OhariMes, Leipzig, 1840, p. 256). But it will at 
once be evident that the SoXovv is only one part of 
the KCLTrrjXeveiv, namely, the tampering with or 
sophisticating the wine by the admixture of alien 
matter, and does not suggest the fact that this is 
done with the purpose of making a disgraceful gain 
thereby. Kay, it might be urged that it only ex- 
presses partially the tampering itself, as the follow- 
ing extract from Lucian (Herinotimus, 59) would 
seem to say : ol cjuXocrocpoi, airoBtSovraL rd /jLaOyj/xara 
cocnrep ol fcdiTrjXoL, fcepacrd/JLevoL <ye ol 7roWol, kcu 
8o\cDcravTe$, koX KatcofierpovvTe^ : for here the BoXovv 
is only one part of the deceitful handling by the 
K&irrjXos of the wares which he sells. 

But whether this be worth urging or not, it is 
quite certain that, while in the one word there is 
only the simple falsifying, there is in the other the 
doing of this with the intention of obtaining shame- 
ful gain thereby. Surely here is a moment in the 
sin of the false teachers, which St. Paul, in dis- 
claiming the Ka7T7]\ev€Lv, intended to disclaim for 
himself. He does in as many words most earnestly 
disclaim it in this same Epistle (xii. 14 ; cf. Acts 
xx. 33), and this the more earnestly, seeing that it 



NEW TESTAMENT. 55 

is continually noted in Scripture as a mark of false 
prophets and false apostles (for so does the meanest 
cleave to the highest, and untruthfulness in highest 
things expose to lowest temptations), that they, 
through covetousness, make merchandise of souls 
thus by St. Paul himself, Tit. i. 11 ; Phil. iii. 19 
cf. 2 Pet. ii. 3, 14, 15 ; Judell, 16 ; Ezek. xiii. 19 
and see Ignatius (the larger recension), where, no 
doubt with a reference to this passage, and showiug 
how the writer understood it, the false teachers are 
denounced as %p7}fjLaTo\al\a7re<;, as yjpiaTkynzopoi, 
rbv *Irj<Tovv 7rco\ovvTes, teal KaTrrfkevovres rbv \6yov 
7ov evayyeXlov. Surely we have here a difference 
which it is quite worth our while not to pass by 
unobserved. The Galatian false teachers were such 
as undoubtedly might have been charged as Sokovv- 
T6? rbv \6yov, mingling, as they did, vain human 
traditions with the pure word of the Gospel ; build- 
ing in hay, straw, and stubble with its silver, gold, 
and precious stones ; but there is nothing which 
would lead us to charge them as /caTrrjXevovres rbv 
\6yov rod Qeov, working this mischief which they 
did work for filthy lucre's sake (see Deyling, Olyss. 
Sao. vol. iv. p. 636). 

I cannot forbear quoting here a remarkable 
extract from Bentley's Sermon on Pojpery ( WorJcs, 
vol. iii. p. 212), in which he strongly maintains the 
distinction which 1 have endeavoured to trace : 



56 SYNONYMS OF THE 

* Our English Translators have not been very hapj3y 
in their version of this passage [2 Cor. ii. 17]. We 
are not, says the Apostle, KairrfkevovTes rbv \6yov 
rod Oeov, which our Translators have rendered, 
"we do not corrupt" or (as in the margin) deal 
deceitfully with " the word of God." They were 
led to this l>y the parallel place, c. iv. of this Epistle, 
ver. 2, " not walking in craftiness," fiySe BoXovvres 
rbv \6yov rod €>eov, " nor handling the word of God 
deceitfully ; " they took Kairrfkevovre^ and SdXovvres 
in the same adequate notion, as the vulgar Latin 
had done before them, which expresses both by the 
same word, adulterantes verbum Dei ; and so, like- 
wise, Hesychius makes them synonyms, eKKairT]- 
\eveiv, SdXovv. AokovVy indeed, is fitly rendered 
c adulterare ; ' so SoXovv ' tov xpvabv, rbv olvov, to 
adulterate gold or wine, by mixing worse ingre- 
dients with the metal or liquor. And our Trans- 
lators had done well if they had rendered the latter 
passage, not adulterating, not sophisticating the 
word. But KairrjkevovTes in our text has a complex 
idea and a wider signification ; KaTrrfkeveiv always 
comprehends BdXovv; but BoXovv never extends to 
KairrfKeveiv, which, besides the sense of adulterating, 
has an additional notion of unjust lucre, gain, profit, 
advantage. This is plain from the word /caTnjXos, 
a calling always infamous for avarice and knavery : 
" perfidus hie caupo," says the poet, as a genera] 



NEW TESTAMENT. 57 

character. Thence fcairrfXevecv, by an easy and 
natural metaphor, was diverted to other expres- 
sions where cheating and lucre were signified : xa- 
irrjXeveiv top \6yov, says the Apostle here, and the 
ancient Greeks, Kairrfkevevv ra<; hi/cas, rrjv elprjvrjv, 
tt]v aofyiav, to, fiaOijfjLaTa, to corrupt and sell jus- 
tice, to barter a negociation of peace, to prostitute 
learning and philosophy for gain. Cheating, we 
see, and adulterating is part of the notion of Kairr\- 
Xevew, but the principal essential of it is sordid 
lucre. So ' cauponari ' in the famous passage of 
EnniuSj where Pyrrhus refuses the offer of a ransom 
for his captives, and restores them gratis : 

4 Non mi aurum posco, nee mi pretium dederitis, 
Non cauponanti bellum, sed belligeranti.' 

And so the Fathers expound this place So 

that, in short, what St. Paul says, KairrfkevovTe? 
rbv \6yov, might be expressed in one classic word 
— Xoye/jLTropoi,, or \oyo7rparcu, 1 where the idea of 
gain and profit is the chief part of the signification. 
Wherefore, to do justice to our text, we must not 
stop lamely with our Translators, " corrupters of 
the word of God ; " but add to it as its plenary 
notion, " corrupters of the word of God for filthy 
lucre" 

If what has been just said is correct, it will 

1 So KoyoirwKot, in Philo, Cong. Erud. Grat. 10. 



58 SYNONYMS OF THE 

follow that < deceitfully handling ' would be a more 
accurate, though itself not a perfectly adequate, 
rendering of /ownyXeuoims, and < who corrupt' of 
Sdkovvres, than the converse of this which our 
Yersion actually offers. 



§ xiii. — ayadcoavvr], xp^tott??. 

'AyadcHrtvri is one of the words with which re- 
vealed religion has enriched the Greek language. 
It occurs no where else but in the Greek transla- 
tions of the O. T. (Nehem. ix. 25 ; 2 Chron. xiv. 
16), in the "N. T., and in those writings which are 
directly dependent upon these. The grammarians, 
indeed, at no time acknowledged, or gave to it or 
to ayaeSrw the stamp of allowance, demanding 

that xfWrirvi' wMch ? et we sha11 See iS n0t abS °" 
lutely identical with it, should be always employed 
in its stead (Lobeck, Pathol. Serm. Gtcbc. p. 237). 
In the N. T. we meet with it four times, always in 
the writings of St. Paul (Rom. xv. 14 ; Gal. v. 22 ; 
Ephes. v. 9 ; 2 Thess. i. 11) ; and it is invariably 
rendered < goodness ' in our Yersion. We feel the 
want of some word more special and definite at 
such passages as Gal. v. 22, where dyaO^w 
makes one of a long list of Christian virtues or 



NEW TESTAMENT. 59 

graces, and must mean some single and separate 
grace, while ' goodness ' seems to embrace all. To 
explain it there, as Phavoriniis explains it, rj aizr\p- 
THTfjLevTi apery, is little satisfactory. It is quite 
true that in such passages as Ps. lii. 5, it is set over 
against fcarcia, and has this general meaning, but 
not there. At the same time it is hard to suggest 
any other rendering ; even as, no doubt, it is harder 
to seize the central force of this word than it is of 
XP7)<tt6tt]s, this difficulty mainly arising from the 
fact that we have no helping passages in other 
literature ; for, however these can never be admit- 
ted to give the absolute law to the meaning of 
words in Scripture, we feel much at a loss when 
such are wanting altogether. It may be well, 
therefore, to consider ^prjcrroTT]^ first, and when 
it is seen what domain of meaning is occupied by 
it, we may then better judge what remains for 
ayaOcocrvvr]. 

That other, a beautiful word, as it is the expres- 
sion of a beautiful grace, (cf. xp 7 1°" r07 i@ eia > Ecclus. 
xxxvii. 13), like aya0G)avv7], occurs in the !N". T. 
only in the writings of St. Paul, being by him 
joined to (fcikavdpwTria, (Tit. iii. 4) ; to paKpoOvfiia 
and avoyr) (Pom. ii. 4) ; and opposed to airoTOfita 
(Rom. xi. 22). -The E. Y. renders it < good ' (Pom. 
iii. 12) ; ' kindness ' (2 Cor. vi. 6 ; Ephes. ii. 7 ; 
Col. iii. 12; Tit. iii. 4); 'gentleness' (Gal. v. 22). 



60 SYNONYMS OF THE 

The Rheims, which has for it \ benignity ' (Gal. v. 
22), ' sweetness ' (2 Cor. vi. 6), has perhaps seized 
more successfully the central notion of the word. 
It is explained in the Definitions which go under 
Plato's name (412 e), rjdovs airkaa-rla fxer eiiko- 
y tar Las', by Phavorinus, evo-7f\ay)(y{a, rj irpbs tovs 
TreXa? avvSiadeaLS, tcl avrov &>? olfeeia l8io7roiov/jLevr). 
It is joined by Clemens Romanus with eXeo? (1 Ep. 
i. 9) ; by Plutarch with fyCkavdpwirla (Demet. 50) ; 
with evfieveia (De Cap. ex In. Util. 9) ; with y\v- 
tcvOvjAia {Terr, an Aquat. 32) ; with ottXot^? and 
fjLeya\o<j)pocrvv7) : grouped by Philo with evQv/Ma, 
r]fjb6poT7]s, 7]iTib7^ (De Mer. Merc. 3). So too, when 
Josephus speaks of the xpW^^ 7 )^ °f Isaac (Antt. i. 
18. 3), the word marks upon his part a very true 
insight into the character of the patriarch ; see Gen. 
xxvi. 20—22. 

Calvin has quite too superficial a view of xprj- 
gtott)?, when, commenting on Col. iii. 12, he writes : 
' Comitatem — sic enim vertere libuit xPV crT ° T W ra > 
quanos reddimus amabiles. Mansuetudo \7rpdvT7]<f\ y 
quae sequitur, latins patet quam comitas, nam ilia 
prsecipue est in vnltu ac sermone, hgec etiam in 
affectu interiore.' So far from being this mere 
grace of word and countenance, it is one pervading 
and penetrating the whole nature, mellowing there 
all which would have been harsh and austere ; thus 
wine is XP 7 ! " 7 ^* which has been mellowed with 



NEW TESTAMENT. 61 

age (Luke v. 39) ; Christ's yoke is XPV <7T ^, as hav- 
ing nothing harsh or galling about it (Matt. xi. 30). 
On the distinction between it and ayaOaxrvvrj Coc- 
ceius (on Gal. v. 22), quoting Tit. iii. 4, where 
Xprjo-Torr)? occurs, goes on to say : i Ex quo exemplo 
patet per hanc yocem significari quandam liberali- 
tatem et studium benefaciendi. Per alteram autem 
[dya0o)(7vv7j] possumus intelligere comitatem, sua- 
vitatem morum, concinnitatem, grayitatem morum, 
et omnem amabilitatem cum decoro et dignitate con- 
junctam.' This does not seem to me perfectly suc- 
cessful as a distinction. If the words are at all set 
over against one another the ' suavitas ' belongs to 
the xprjo-Torr)? rather than to the ayadcocrvvT}. I 
like much better what Jerome has said on the 
difference between the words. Indeed, I do not 
know anything so well said on this matter else- 
where (Com. in Ep. ad Gal. v. 22) : ' Benignitas 
sive suavitas, quia apud Grsecos xp-qo-TOTrjs utrum- 
que son at, virtus est lenis, blanda, tranquilla, et 
omnium bonorum apta consortio ; invitans ad fa- 
miliaritatem sui, dulcis alloquio, moribus tempe- 
rata. Denique et hanc Stoici ita definiunt : Benig- 
nitas est virtus sponte ad benefaciendum exposita. 
Non multum tonitas \wya6co<Tvvri] a benignitate 
diversa est ; quia et ipsa ad benefaciendum videtur 
exposita. Sed in eo differt ; quia potest bonitas 
esse tristior, et fronte sevens moribus irrugata, 



62 SYNONYMS OF THE 

bene quidem facer e et prsestare quod poscitur ; non 
tamen suavis esse consortio, et sua cunctos invitare 
dulcedine. Hanc quoque sectatores Zenonis ita 
definiunt : Bonitas est virtus quae prodest, sive, 
virtus ex qua oritur utilitas ; aut, virtus propter 
semetipsam ; aut, affectus qui fons sit utilitatum.' 
Witli this agrees in the main the distinction which 
Basil draws between the words {Reg. Brev. Tract. 
214) : irXarvrepav oljiai elvat rrjv ^prja-TOTrjra, et? 
evepyecrlav tcov o7Tco$ Sv7totovv iTriheofievcov ravT7)<; * 
(TVV7]<y/jb€V7]v Be fiaXkov rrjv ayadcoavvnv, fcal rot? rr)? 
§iKaiGG-vvri<; \6yoL? iv reus evepyeaiais (jvyyjpmyikvnv. 

A man might display his ayaOcocrvvv, his zeal 
for goodness and truth, in rebuking, correcting, 
chastising. Christ was working in the spirit of 
this grace w T hen He drove the buyers and sellers 
out of the temple (Matt. xxi. 13) ; when He uttered 
all those terrible words against the Scribes and 
Pharisees recorded in the 23d chapter of St. Mat- 
thew ; but we could not say that his XPV <7T ° T V$ was 
shown in these acts of a righteous indignation. 
This was rather displayed in his reception of the 
penitent woman (Luke vii. 37 — 50 ; cf. Ps. xxiv. 7, 
8) ; in all his gracious dealings with the children of 
men. Thus we might speak, — the Apostolic Con- 
stitutions (ii. 22) do speak, — of the xpno-TOTws 7% 
aya6(oavvws of God, but scarcely of the converse. 
This xpTjcrTOTr)? was predominantly the character of 



NEW TESTAMENT. 63 

Christ's ministry, so much so that it is nothing 
wonderful to learn from Tertullian (Apol. 3), how 
' Christns ' became ' Chrestus,' and ' Christiani ' 
6 Chrestiani ' on the lips of the heathen — with that 
undertone, it is true, of contempt, 1 which the world 
feels, and soon learns to express in words, for a 
goodness which to it seems to have only the harm- 
lessness of the dove, and nothing of the wisdom of 
the serpent ; a contempt which it is justified in 
feeling for a goodness which has no edge, no sharp- 
ness in it, no righteous indignation against sin, nor 
willingness to punish it. That what was called 
%/)77<7t6t77?, still retaining this honourable name, did 
yet sometimes degenerate into this, and end with 
being no goodness at all, we have evidence in a 
striking fragment of Menander (Meinehe, Fragm. 
Com. Grcec. p. 982) :— 

7] VVV VTTO TIVCCV ^p7J(TTjr7JS KaA0Vfl€V7) 

fiedrjice rbu oXov els irovypiav fiiov ' 
ouSels yap a.8iKU>u rvyxavei Tifiwpias. 

1 The xP r i <Tr ^ was called yXiOios by those who would fain take 
every thing by its wrong handle (Aristotle, Rhet. i. 9. 3 ; cf. Euse- 
bius, Prap. Evang. v. 5. 5). 



64 SYNONYMS OF THE 



§ xiv. — Slktvov, a/j,(f)l/3\7)o-Tpov } erayrfvT]. 

Our English, word 'net' will, in a general way, 
cover all these three, which yet are capable of a 
more accurate discrimination one from the other. 

Alktvov (= 'rete,' 'retia'), from the old hacelv, 
to cast, which appears again in Si<tkos, a quoit, is 
the more general name for all nets, and would in- 
clude the hunting net as well as the fishing, although 
used only of the latter in the K T. (Matt. iv. 20 ; 
John xxi. 6). 

'Aficj)i/3\7i<TTpov and aaytfvTj are different kinds 
of fishing nets ; they occur together, Hab. i. 15 ; 
and in Plutarch {JDe Sol. Anim. 26), who joins 
7/}t7ro? with aay^vrj, viroyf) with d/jL(j)il3Xr]crTpov. 
A/MpifiXrjCTTpov, found only in the IS". T. at Matt, 
iv. 18, and Mark i. 16 ; cf. Eccl. ix. 12 ; Ps. cxl. 10 ; 
{a^i^oXrj, Oppian), is the casting net, 'jaculuro.,' 
i. e. ' rete jaculum ' (Ovid, At. Am. i. 763), or 
'fund a' (Yirgil, Georg. i. 141), which, when skil- 
fully cast from over the shoulder by one standing 
on the shore, or in a boat, spreads out into a circle 
(dfufufidWerai) as it falls upon the water, and then 
sinking swiftly by the weight of the leads attached 
to it, encloses whatever is below it. Its circular, 
bell-like shape adapted it to the office of a mosquito 



NEW TESTAMENT. 65 

net, to which, as Herodotus (ii. 95) tells us, the 
Egyptian fishermen turned it ;' but see Blakesley's 
Herodotus, in loco. 

%a<y}]V7], found only at Matt. xiii. 47: cf. Eccl. 
vii. 28 ; Isai. xix. 8 (from aaTrco, ' onero,' perf. 
criaaja), is the long draw-net, or sweep-net, ' vasta 
sagena' Manilius calls it, the ends of which being 
carried out in boats so as to enclose a large space 
of open sea, are then drawn together, and all which 
they contain, enclosed and taken. It is rendered 
' sagena ' in the Yulgate, whence ' seine,' or ' sean,' 
the name which this net has in Cornwall, on whose 
coasts it is much in use. In classical Latin it is 
called ' everriculurn ' (see Cicero's pun upon Yerres' 
name, ' everriculurn in provincia '), from its sweep- 
ing the bottom of the sea. From the fact that it 
was thus a irdvaypov or take-all (Homer, II. v. 
487), the Greeks gave the name of o-ayrjveveiv to 
a device by which the Persians were reported to 
have cleared a conquered island of its inhabitants 
(Herodotus, iii. 149 ; vi. 31 ; Plato, Legg. iii. 698 d). 
Yirgil in two lines describes the fishing by aid of 
the ajjLcfrifiXrjcTTpov and the aa^rjvri, every word in 
each line having its precise fitness for its own kind 
(Georg, i. 141) : — 

' Atque alius latum fundil jam verberat amnem 
Alta petens, pelagoque alius trahit humida lina.' 

It will be seen that there is an evident fitness in 



Db SYNONYMS OF THE 

our Lord's use of aayrjvv in a parable (Matt. xiii. 
47) wherein He is setting forth the wide reach, and 
all-embracing character, of his future kingdom. 
Neither a/x<f>i/3\7)<jTpov, nor yet hUrvov which might 
not have meant more than afj,cf>ift\r)GTpov, would 
have suited at all so well. 



§ xv. — XvTreofjLat, irevdeco, Oprjveco, kotttcd. 

In all these words there is the sense of grief, or 
the utterance of grief; but the sense of grief in dif- 
ferent degrees of intensity, the utterance of it in 
different ways of manifestation. 

AvTrelcrOai (Matt. xiy. 9 ; Ephes. iv. 30 ; 1 Pet. 
i. 6) is the most general word, to be sorrowful, 
' dolere,' being opposed to xalpeLv (Aristotle, Rhet. 
i. 2), as \v7tv to x a P^ (Xenopkon, Hell. vii. 1, 22). 
Tkis \vtt7], unlike tke grief of the three following 
words, a man may so entertain in the deep of his 
heart, that there shall not be any outward manifes- 
tation of it, unless he himself be pleased to reveal 
it (Eom. ix. 2 ; Phil. ii. 7). 

Not so the irevdelv, which is stronger, being not 
merely ' dolere ' or ' angi,' but ' lugere,' and like 
this last, properly and primarily (Cicero, Tusc. i. 
13; iv. 8: 'luctus, ssgritudo ex ejus, qui cams 



NEW TESTAMENT. 67 

fuerit, interitu acerbo ') to lament for the dead ; irev- 
Oelv vkicvv (Homer, II. xix. 225); to*)? dirokwKora^ 
(Xenophon, Hell. ii. 2, 3) ; then any other passionate 
lamenting (Sophocles, (Ed. Tyr. 1296 ; Gen. xxxvii. 
34) ; irevOos being in fact a form of irdOo^ (see Plu- 
tarch, Cons, ad Apoll. 22) ; to grieve with a grief 
which so takes possession of the whole being that 
it cannot be hid ; cf. Spanheim {Dub. Evang. 81) : 
'irevdelv enim apud Hellenistas respondit verbis 
ri32 Kkaieiv, Oprjvelv, et ^ okoXv^eiv, adeoque non 
tantum denotat lnctum conceptum intus, sed et ex- 
pressum foris.' According to Chrysostom (in loco) 
the 7revdovvTe$ of Matt. v. 4 are ol fier eiriTaaew^ 
\v7TovfjL6voL, those who so grieve that their grief 
manifests itself externally. Thus we find irevOelv 
often joined with Kkaieiv (2 Kin. xix. 1 ; Mark xvi. 
10 ; Jam. iv. 9 ; Rev. xviii. 13) ; so irevOwv zeal 
aKvdpwird^wv, Ps. xxxiv. 14. Gregory of Nyssa 
(Suicer, Thes. s. v. irevOos), gives it more generally, 
irevOos earl (TKv0pco7rrj d>ia6e<ri<$ t?}? 'v/tu^?, eirl crre- 

pr}(T6L TlVO<$ TCOV /CCLTaOv/JLLCOV CTVVKTTa/JieVTJ \ but lie 

was not distinguishing synonyms, and in nothing 
therefore induced to draw out finer distinctions. 

Oprjveiv, joined with oBvpeaOai (Plutarch, Quom. 
Virt. Prof. 5), with KaroiKreipeiv (Cons, ad Apoll. 
11), is to bewail, to make a Opfjvos, a ' nenia ' or 
dirge over the dead, which may be mere wailing 
or lamentation (Oprjvos koX KkavOfAos, Matt. ii. 18), 



68 SYNONYMS OF THE 

breaking out in unstudied words, the Irish wake is 
such a Oprjvo^y or it may take the more artificial 
form of a poem. That beautiful lamentation which 
David composed over Saul and Jonathan, is intro- 
duced in the Septuagint with these words, iOprjvrjce 
Aaftlh tov 6p7)vov tovtov, k. r. X. (2 Sam. i. IT), and 
the sublime dirge over Tyre is called a Oprjvos 
(Ezek. xxvi. 17 ; cf. Rev. xviii. 11 ; 2 Chron. xxxv. 
25 ; Amos viii. 10). 

We have last to deal with Koirreiv (Matt. xxiv. 
30 ; Luke xxiii. 27 ; Eev. i. 7). This being first to 
strike, is then that act which most commonly went 
along with the Oprjveiv, to strike the bosom, or beat 
the breast, as an outward sign of inward grief 
(Nah. ii. 7 ; Luke xviii. 13) ; so Koireros (Acts viii. 
2) is 6py)vos fiera ^jro<pov yeip&v (Hesychius), and, as 
nrevOelv, oftenest in token of grief for the dead (Gen. 
xxiii. 2 ; 2 Kin. iii. 31). It is the Latin ' plangere ' 
(' laniataque pectora pi an gens ' : Ovid, Metam. vi. 
248), which is connected with ' plaga ' and ifKrja-aco, 
Plutarch {Cons, ad TTx. 4) joins oXo^vpcreis and ko- 
irerol (cf. Fab. Max. 17 : Koirerol yvvaiKelot,) as two 
of the more violent manifestations of grief, and such 
as he esteems faulty in their excess. 



NEW TESTAMENT, 69 



§ xvi. — afiaprla, d/xaprrj/xa, Trapa/cotf, dvofila, ira- 
pavofiia, irapdfiacns, 7rapd7TTG)fia, dyvorjfjLa, 

7]TT7]fAa. 

A mournfully numerous group of words, which 
it would be only too easy to make much larger 
than it is. Nor is it hard to see why. For sin, 
which we may define in the language of St. Augus- 
tine, as { factum vel dictum vel concupitum aliquid 
contra seternam legem ' (Con. Faust, xxii. 27 ; cf. 
the Stoic definition, d/idpTTj/xa, vofiov dirayopevixa, 
Plutarch, De Rep. Stoic. 11) ; or again, ' voluntas 
admittendi vel retinendi quod justitia vetat, et unde 
liberum est abstinere' (Con. Jul. i. 47), may be 
regarded under an infinite number of aspects, and 
in all languages has been so regarded ; and as the 
diagnosis of it belongs above all to the Scriptures, 
nowhere else are we likely to find it contemplated 
on so many sides, set forth under such various 
images. It may be contemplated as the missing 
of a mark or aim ; it is then d/iapria or dfjbdprTjfjLa : 
the overpassing or transgressing of a line ; it is 
then 7rapdj3a<n<; : the disobedience to a voice; in 
which case it is izapaicor] : the falling where one 
should have stood upright ; this will be irapdirrcd- 
\ia : ignorance of what one ought to have known ; 



70 SYNONYMS OF THE 

this v/ill be ayvorjjuua : diminishing of that which 
should have been rendered in full measure, which is 
i]TT7)/jLa: non-observance of a law, which is avojAia 
or Trapavofjula : a discord, and then it is TrX^/jLiiekeia : 
and in other ways almost out of number. 

In seeking accurately to define a/xapria, and so 
better to distinguish it from the other words of this 
group, there is no help to be derived from its 
etymology, seeing that is quite uncertain. Suidas, 
as is well known, derives it from [xapirTO), i djaapTia 
quasi djjLapTTTia? a failing to grasp. Buttmann's 
conjecture (Lexilogiis, p. 85, English edition), that 
it belongs to the root /juipos, fjuetpeiv, on which a 
negative intransitive verb, to be without one's share 
of, to miss, was formed, has found more favour (see 
Fritzsche on Rom. v. 12, a long note, with excellent 
philology and execrable theology). Only this much 
is plain, that when sin is contemplated as djiapria, 
it is regarded as a failing and missing the true end 
and scope of our lives, which is God ; rj rod dyaOov 
airoTTTwcns, as CEcumenius ; rj rod ayaOov diroTvy^ia, 
and a/AaprdveLv an daKoira ro^evetv, as Suidas ; 7} rod 
fcaXou ifcrpo7rr], elre tov Kara (j)V(riv, elre rod Kara 
vofiov, as another. 

It is a matter of course that with slighter appre- 
hensions of sin, and of the evil of sin, there must go 
hand in hand a slighter ethical significance in the 
words used to express sin. It is therefore nothing 



NEW TESTAMENT. 71 

wonderful that ajjuapjia and dfiaprdveLv should no- 
where in classical Greek obtain that depth of mean- 
ing which in revealed religion they acquired. The 
words run through the same course, through which 
all words ultimately taken up into ethical termi- 
nology, seem inevitably to run. Employed first 
about things natural, they are then transferred to 
things spiritual, according to that analogy between 
those and these, which the soul delights to trace. 
Thus d/xaprdveiv signifies, when we meet it first, to 
miss a mark ; thus a hundred times in Homer the 
warrior d/jLaprei, who hurls his spear, but misses his 
adversary {II. iv. 491). The next advance in the 
use of the words is to things intellectual. The poet 
dfiaprdvec, who selects a subject which it is impos- 
sible to treat poetically, or who seeks to attain re- 
sults which are beyond the limits of his art (Aris- 
totle, Poet. 8 and 25) ; so we have Sof^? dfiaprla 
(Thucydides, i. 33) ; yvcbfjurj? d^dpr^fia (ii. 65). It 
is constantly set over against bpOorrj^ (Plato, Legg. 
i. 627 d; ib. ii. 668 0; Aristotle, Poet. 25). So 
far from having any ethical significance of necessity 
attaching to it, Aristotle sometimes withdraws it, 
almost, if not altogether, from the region of right 
and wrong {Eth. Nic. v. 8, 7) ; it is a mistake, a 
fearful one it may be, like that of OEdipus, but 
nothing more {Poet. 13 ; cf. Euripides, Hipjpolytus, 
1407). Elsewhere, however, it has as much of the 






72 SYNONYMS OF THE 

meaning of our 'sin,' as any word, employed in 
heathen ethics, could possess. 

r AfjLapT7}fjia differs from afxapria, in that d/napTia 
is sin in the abstract as well as the concrete; or 
again, the act of sinning no less than the sin sin- 
ned, 'peccatio' (A. Gellius, xiii. 20, 17) no less 
than ' peccatum ' ; while dpbdpTrjjxa (it only occurs 
Mark iii. 28 ; iv. 12 ; Bom. iii. 25 ; 1 Cor. vi. 18) 
is never sin regarded as sinfulness, or as the act of 
sinning, but only sin contemplated in its separate 
outcomings and deeds of disobedience to a divine 
law. There is the same difference between dvofita 
and dvojjLrjfia (not in the N. T. ; but Ezek. xvi. 49), 
ao-efteia and acrefirj/jLa (not in the N. T. ; but Lev. 
xviii. 17), dBitela and dBUrj/jba (Acts xviii. 14). 
This is brought out by Aristotle {Ethic. Nic. v. 7), 
who sets over against one another ahiicov {= a&iicia) 
and dSiKTjfia in these words : hiatyepet to dSc/erj/jLa 
teal to aSifcov. "ASckov fiev yap earc rfj cfrvcrei,, rj 
Ta%€i ' to avTO Be tovto, bWav irpa%0f), dBiK^fid eari ; 
cf. a good passage in Xenophon {Mem. ii. 2. 3) : al 
7ro\e£? eVl tols fxeyio-TOL^ dhtKrjixacrt tyj/juiap QdvaTOv 
nreiroL'qKaa-Lv, C09 ov/e dv fiei^ovos icaieov <j)6/3a) ttjv 
dSttelav TravarovTes. On the distinction between 
dfiapTia and d/idpTrj/jLa, dBifcla and dhiierifia, and 
other words of this group, there is a discussion at 
length by Clemens of Alexandria {Strom, ii. 15), 
but which does not yield much profit. 



NEW TESTAMENT. 73 

TJapaKorj is found only at Rom. v. 19 (where it 
is opposed to viraKorj\ 2 Cor. x. 6 ; Heb. ii. 2. It 
is not in the Septuagint, but irapa/coveiv (once in 
the ~N. T., Matt, xviii. 17) occurs several times 
there in the sense of to disobey, Esth. iii. 3, 8 ; 
Isai. lxv. 12. TlapaKorj is in its strictest sense a 
failing to hear, or a hearing amiss — the active dis- 
obedience, which follows on this inattentive or care- 
less hearing, being tacitly implied ; or, it may be, 
the sin being contemplated as already committed 
in the failing to listen when God is speaking. 
Bengel (on Eom. v. 19) has a good note ; ' irapd in 
Trapafcorj perquam apposite declarat rationem initii 
in lapsu Adami. Quaeritur quomodo hominis recti 
intellectus aut voluntas potuit detrimentum capere 
aut noxam admittere ? Resp. Intellectus et volun- 
tas simul labavit per dfiiXeiav neque quicquam 
potest prius concipi, quam d/jiiXeia, incuria, sicut 
initium capiendse urbis est vigiliarum remissio. 
Hanc incuriam significat irapaicorj, inobedientia.' 
It need hardly be observed how continually in the 
O. T. disobedience is described as a refusing to hear 
(Jer. xi. 10 ; xxxv. 17) ; and it appears literally as 
such at Acts vii. 57. Joined with, and following 
7rapd{3aai? at Heb. ii. 2, it would there imply, in 
the intention of the writer, that not merely every 
actual transgression, embodying itself in an out- 
ward act of disobedience, was punished, but 
4 



74 SYNONYMS OF THE 

refusal to hear, even though it might not have 
asserted itself in such overt acts of disobedience. 

We have generally translated avofila, l iniquity ' 
(Matt. vii. 23 ; Eom. vi. 19 ; Heb. x. 17) ; but once 
i unrighteousness ' (2 Cor. vi. 14), and once ' trans- 
gression of the law ' (1 John iii. 4). "Avofios is 
once at least in Scripture used negatively of a per- 
son without law, or to whom a law has not been 
given (1 Cor. ix. 21) ; though elsewhere of the 
greatest enemy of all law, the Man of Sin, the law- 
less one (2 Thess. ii. 8) ; uvofila, however, is never 
in Scripture the condition of one living without 
law, but always the condition or deed of one who 
acts contrary to law : and so, of course, m-apavofiia, 
which occurs however only once (2 Pet. ii. 16). It 
will follow that where there is no law (Rom. v. 
12), there may be afiapria, aBc/cla, but certainly 
not avofiia : being, as (Ecumenius defines it, r\ irepl 
rov Oerbv vo/jlov 7r\7jfjL/jii\€La : as Fritzsche : ' legis 
contemtio aut morum licentia qua lex violafcir/ 
Thus the Gentiles, not having a law (Eom. ii. 14), 
might sin, but they, sinning without law (ayofico^ 
= %ft)/)l? vofxov, Eom. ii. 12 ; iii. 21), could not be 
charged with avofila. It is true, indeed, that be-- 
hind that law of Moses, which they never had f 
there is another law, the original law and revela- 
tion of the righteousness of God, written on the 
hearts of all (Eom. ii. 14, 15) ; and as this in no 



NEW TESTAMENT. 75 

human heart is obliterated quite, all sin, even that 
of the darkest and most ignorant savage, must still 
in a secondary sense remain as avofiia, a violation 
of this older, though partially obscured law. Thus 
Origen (in Rom. iv. 5) : ' Iniquitas sane a peccato 
hanc habet differentiam, quod iniquitas in his 
dicitur quae contra legem committuutur, unde et 
Grsecus sermo dvofxlav appellat. Peccatum vero 
etiam illud dici potest, si contra quam natura docet, 
et conscientia arguit, delinquatur.' Cf. Xenophon, 
Mem. iv. 4. 18, 19. 

It is the same with Trapaftacri*;. There must be 
something to transgress, before there can be a trans- 
gression. There was sin between Adam and Moses, 
as was witnessed by the fact that there was death ; 
but those between the law given in Paradise (Gen. 
ii. 16, 17) and the law given from Sinai, sinning 
indeed, yet did not sin " after the similitude of 
Adam's transgression " (Trapafido-ews, Kom. v. 14). 
With law came first the possibility of the trans- 
gression of the law ; and exactly this transgression, 
or trespass, is irapaftacris, from TrapaftaiveLv, ' tran- 
silire lineam,' the French, i forfait,' ' faire fors ' or 
' hors,' some act which is excessive, enormous. Ci- 
cero {Par ad. 3) : ' Peccare est tan quam transilire 
lineas ;' compare the Homeric virepfiaGVY}, 11. iii. 107 
and often. In the constant language of St. Paul this 
Trapafiacri';, as the transgression of a commandment 



76 SYNONYMS OF THE 

distinctly given, is more serious than d\iapria (Rom. 
ii. 23 ; 1 Tim. ii. 14 ; cf. Heb. ii. 2 ; ix. 14). It is 
in this point of view, and indeed with reference to 
the very word with which we have to do, that 
Angnstine draws often the distinction between the 
' peccator ' and the ' praevaricator,' between i pec- 
catum' (dfiapTta) and ' praevaricatio ' {irapd^aon^). 1 
It will be seen that his Latin word introduces a 
new image, not of overpassing a line, but of halting 
on unequal feet. The image, however, had faded 
from the word when he used it, and his motive to 
employ it lies in the fact that the ' prsevaricator,' or 
collusive prosecutor, dealt unjustly with a law. 
He who, having no express law, sins, is in Augus- 
tine's language, ' peccator;' he who, having a law, 
sins, is ' prsevaricator ' (= irapa^drr}^, Rom. ii. 25). 
Before the law came men might be the first ; after 
the law they could only be the second. In the 
first there is implicit, in the second explicit, dis- 
obedience. 

We now arrive at irapdrrrcofjia. ' Si originem 
verbi spectemus, significat ea facta prae quibus quis 
cadit et prostratus jacet, ut stare coram Deo et sur- 
gere non potest ' (Cocceius). At Ephes. ii. 1, where 

1 E r nxirr. in Ps. cxviii. ; Senn. 25 : ' Omnis quidem prevaricator 
peccator est, quia peecat in lege, sed non omnis peccator prsevari- 
cator est, quia peccant aliqui sine lege. Ubi autem non est lex, nee 
prcevaricatio.' 



NEW TESTAMENT. 17 

irapaTTTcofiara and apbaprlai are found together, 
Jerome quotes with apparent assent a distinction 
between them ; that the former are sins conceived 
in the mind, and the latter the same embodied in 
actual deeds : ' Aiunt quod irapairT^ixaTa quasi 
initia peccatorum sint, quum cogitatio tacita sub-' 
repit, et ex aliqua parte conniventibus nobis ; nec- 
dum tamen nos impulit ad ruinam. Peccatum vero 
esse, quum quid opere consummation pervenit ad 
finem.' This, however, cannot be allowed to pass. 
Only this much truth it may be admitted to have ; 
that, as sins of thought partake more of the nature 
of infirmity, and have less aggravation than the 
same sins embodied in act, so it cannot be denied 
that there is sometimes a disposition to employ 
TrapdiTTcofjia when it is intended to designate sins 
not of the deepest dye and the worst enormity. 
One may trace this very clearly at Gal. vi. 1, where, 
doubtless, our Translators meant to indicate as 
much when they rendered it by 'fault,' and not 
obscurely, as it seems to me, at Rom. v. 15, 17, 18. 
It is used in the same sense as an error, a mistake 
in judgment, a blunder, by Polybius (ix. 10. 6 ; cf. 
Ps. xviii. 13). To a certain feeling of this we may 
ascribe another inadequate distinction, — that, name- 
ly, of Augustine (Qu. ad Lev. 20), who will have 
irapaTTTco/jia to be the negative omission of good 
(' desertio boni,' or i delictum '), as contrasted with 



78 SYNONYMS OF THE 

a-fiapria, the positive doing of evil (' perpetratio 
tnaii '), though of course this cannot be accepted as 
otherwise having any right in it. 

Bat this mitigated sense is very far from be- 
longing always to the word. There is nothing of it 
at Ephes. ii. 1, " dead in trespasses (TraptnrTobfiao-i) 
and sins ; " irapaiTTwp,a is mortal sin, Ezek. xviii. 
26 ; and the irapanre&elv of Heb. vi. 6 is equivalent 
to the ifcovcricos afiaprdvetv of x. 26, the airoarrivai 
airo Qeov Jgwto? of iii. 12 ; and any such extenua- 
tion of the force of the word is expressly excluded 
in a passage of Philo (ii. 648), resembling these two 
in the Hebrews, in which he distinctly calls it ira- 
paTTTcopLa, when a man, having reached an acknow- 
ledged pitch of godliness and virtue, falls back 
from, and out of this ; c he was lifted up to the height 
of heaven, and is fallen down to the deep of hell.' 

'Ayv6r)p,a in the !N". T. occurs only at Heb. ix. 7 
(see Tholuck, On the Hebrews, Beit. p. 92), but also 
at 1 Mace. xiii. 39 ; arid ayvoia in the same sense 
of sin, Ps. xxv. 7 and often ; and ayvoelv, to sin, at 
Hos. iv. 15 ; Ecclus. v. 15 ; Heb. v. 2. Sin is 
designated by this word when it is desired to make 
excuses for it, so far as this may be possible, to re- 
gard it in the mildest possible light (see Acts iii. 
17). There is indeed always a certain element of 
ignorance in every human transgression, which con- 
stitutes it human and not devilish, and which, while 



NEW TESTAMENT. 79 

it does not take away, yet so far mitigates the sin- 
fulness of it, as to render its forgiveness not indeed 
necessary, but possible. Thus compare the words 
of the Lord, " Father, forgive them, for they know 
not what they do " (Luke xxiii. 34), with those of 
St. Paul, " I obtained mercy because I did it igno- 
rantly, in unbelief" (1 Tim. i. 13). No sin of man, 
except perhaps the sin against the Holy Ghost, 
which for this reason is irremissible (Matt. xii. 32), 
is committed with a full and perfect recognition of 
the evil which is chosen as evil, and the good which 
is abandoned as good. Compare the numerous 
passages in the Dialogues of Plato, which identify 
vice with ignorance, and even pronounce that no 
man is voluntarily evil ; ovSeU eKoov kclkos, and what 
is said qualifying or guarding this statement in 
Archer Butler's Lectures on Ancient Philosophy, 
vol. ii. p. 285. Whatever exaggeration there may 
be in his statement, it still remains true that sin is 
always, more or less, an dyvoyfia ; and the more the 
ayvoelv, as opposed to the iicovo-Lcos dfxaprdvetv (Heb. 
x. 26), predominates, the greater the extenuation 
of the sinfulness of the sin. There is therefore an 
eminent fitness in the employment of the word on 
the one occasion, referred to already, where it is 
used in the N". T. The dyvorj/juara, or c errors ' of 
the people, for which the High Priest offered sacri- 
fice on the great day of atonement, were not wilful 



80 SYNONYMS OF THE 

transgressions, " presumptuous sins " (Ps. xix. 13), 
' peccata proseretica,' committed against conscience 
and with a high hand against God ; those who com- 
mitted such would be cut off from the congregation; 
there was no provision made in the Levitical con- 
stitution for the forgiveness of such (Num. xv. 30, 
31) ; but sins growing out of the weakness of the 
flesh, out of an imperfect insight into God's law, 
out of heedlessness and lack of due circumspection 
(Lev. v. 15—19; Num. xv. 22—29), and after- 
wards looked back on with shame and regret. The 
same difference exists between ayvoia and dyvo7]fia 
which has been already traced between dfiapria 
and d/xdpTT]fia, dhuda and dSUrj/ia : that one, name- 
ly the first, is often the more abstract, the other is 
always the concrete. 

"Htttjucl does not appear in classical Greek, but 
rjrra, being opposed to vUtj, as discomfiture or 
worsting to victory, and has passed very much 
through the same stages as the Latin l clades.' In 
the final fia which it has acquired we have an 
illustration of the tendency of so many words to 
obtain an additional syllable in the later periods of 
a language. r/ Hrrrjfia appears once in the Septua- 
gint (Isai. xxxi. 8), and twice in the N. T., namely 
at Rom. xi. 12 ; 1 Cor. vi. 7 ; but only in the latter 
instance having an ethical sense, as a coming short 
of duty, a fault, the German ' Fehler,' the Latin 



NEW TESTAMENT. 81 



4 delictum.' Gerhard {Log. Theoll. xi.) : ' r\TTi)\xa 
diminutio, defectus, ab fjTTaaOai, victum esse, quia 
peccatores succumbunt carnis et Satanse tentation- 
ibus.' 

n\r)/jL/jLe\eia, a very frequent word in the Old 
Testament (Lev. v. 15 ; Num. xviii. 9, and often), 
does not occur in the New. It is derived, as need 
hardly be said, from TrX^jifxeXri^, one who sings 
out of tune (ttX^v and fiiXos), — as ifjufxeXr}*; is one 
who is in tune, and e/^eXeta, the right modulation 
of the voice to the music ; — so that Augustine's 
Greek is at fault when he finds in it piXei, ' curse 
est ' (Qu. in Lev. 1. iii. qu. 20), and makes ttXtjjjl- 
fieXeia = afieXeia. Kather it is sin regarded as a 
discord or disharmony (TrXrj/jLfieXetcu teal afjuerpiai, 
Plutarch, Symjp. ix. 14. T), according to those sub- 
lime words of Milton : 

' Disproportioned sin 
Jarred against nature's chime, and with harsh din 
Broke the fair music that all creatures made 
To their great Lord.' 



§ xvii. — apyalos, irdkaib^. 

"We should go astray if we contemplated these 
words as expressing one a higher antiquity than the 

4* 



82 SYNONYMS OF THE 

other, and should at all seek in this the distinction 
between them. On the contrary, this remoter an- 
tiquity will be expressed now by one, now by the 
other. 'Apxalos, expressing that which was f?'om 
the beginning (air »/>%%), if we accept this as the 
first beginning of all, must be older than any per- 
son or thing that is merely irakaios, existing a long 
time ago (?raka,i) ; while on the other hand there 
may be so many later beginnings, that it is quite 
possible to conceive the Trakcuos as older than the 
apxalo?. In Donaldson's New Cratylus, p. 19, the 
following passage occurs : c As the word archceology 
is already appropriated to the discussion of those 
subjects of which the antiquity is only comparative, 
it would be consistent with the usual distinction 
between ap^alo? and TraXaio^ to give the name of 
jpalcBology to those sciences which aim at repro- 
ducing an absolutely primeval state or condition.' 
I confess I fail to find in the uses of wdkaios so 
strong a sense, or at least at all so constant a sense, 
of a more primeval state or condition, as this state- 
ment would seem to imply. Thus compare Thucy- 
dides, ii. 15 : l B,vfjL/3e/3rjK6 tovto airo tov irdvv ap- 
Xaiov, that is, from the pre-historic time of Cecrops, 
with i. 18 : AafceSaifAcov etc ircbkaiTcurov evvofi7]0r], 
from very early times, but still within the historic 
period ; where the words are used in senses exactly 
reversed. 



NEW TESTAMENT. 83 

The distinction between them is not to be look- 
ed for here, and on many occasions it is not to be 
looked for at all. Often they occur together as 
merely cumulative synonyms, or at any rate with 
no higher antiquity predicated by the one than by 
the other (Plato, Legg. 865 d ; Plutarch, Cons, ad 
Apoll. 27; Justin Martyr, Coh. ad Grceo. 5). It 
lies in the etymology of the words that in cases out 
of number they may be quite indifferently used ; 
that which was from the beginning will have been 
generally from a long while since ; and that which 
was from a long while since will have been often 
from the beginning. Thus the apyata $ wv *) °f one 
passage in Plato (Or at. 418 e) is exactly equivalent 
to the irdkala (fxovrj of another {lb. 398 b) ; ol ttcl- 
Xacoi and ol apyaloi alike mean the ancients (Plu- 
tarch, Cons, ad Apoll. 14 and 33) ; there cannot be 
much difference between iraXaioi %pbvoi (2 Mace, 
vi. 21) and apyaiai r/jjuepcu (Ps. xliii. 2). 

At the same time it is evident that whenever 
an emphasis is desired to be laid on the reaching 
back to a beginning, whatever that beginning may 
be, a/5%<xto? will be preferred. Thus Satan is 6 6'<£t? 
o apxalos (Rev. xii. 9 ; xx. 2), his mischievous coun- 
terworkings of God reaching back to the earliest 
epoch of the history of man. The world before the 
flood, that therefore which was indeed from the 
first, is 6 ap^alo^; /coarfios (2 Pet. ii. 5). Mnason 



84 SYNONYMS OF THE 

was apxaios [ladrjTrj^ (Acts xxi. 16), " an old dis- 
ciple," not in the sense in which most English 
readers inevitably take the words, namely, an aged 
disciple, but one who had been snch from the com- 
mencement of the faith, from Pentecost or before 
it. The original founders of the Jewish Common- 
wealth, who, as such, gave with authority the law, 
are ol apyaioi (Matt. v. 21, 27, 33 ; cf. 1 Sam. xxiv. 
14 ; Isai. xxv. 1) ; irians apyaia (Eusebius, JET. E. 
v. 28, 9), is the faith which was from the beginning, 
" once delivered to the saints." The Timceus of 
Plato, 22 5, offers an instructive passage in which 
both words occur, where it is not hard to trace the 
finer instincts of language which have determined 
their several use ; another occurs in the Trachinice, 
546, where Deianira speaks of the poisoned, shirt, 
the gift to her of Nessus : 

9jv fioi TraXaibv h~copov apx^ov irore 
drjpbs, \4fit)Ti xaXKecp KZKpvp.iJ.hov. 

Compare the Eumenides, 727, 728, which furnishes 
another. 

^Apyctios, like the Latin ' prisons,' will often 
designate the ancient as the venerable as well, as 
that to which the honour due to antiquity belongs ; 
thus Kvpos o apyaiosy Xenophon, Ancib. i. 9. 1 ; 
and it is here that we reach a point of decided 
divergence between it and irdkaios, each going off 
into a secondary meaning of its own, which it does 



NEW TESTAMENT. 85 

not share with the other, but possesses exclusively 
as its own domain. I have just observed that the 
honour of antiquity is sometimes expressed by a/> 
^ato?, nor indeed is it altogether strange to iraXaios : 
but there are other qualities that cleave to the 
ancient; it is often old-fashioned, seems to be un- 
suitable to the present, and to belong to a world 
which has past away. "We have a witness for this 
fact in our own language, where ' antique ' and 
'antic' are but two different spellings of one and 
the same word. There lies often in ap^alo^ this 
sense superadded of old-world fashion; now not 
merely antique, but antiquated and out of date 
(^Eschylus, Prom. V. 325 ; Aristophanes, Pint. 
323) ; and still more strongly in ap^cLiorr)?, which 
has no other meaning but this (Plato, Legg. ii. 
657 l\ 

But while ap-^aio^ goes off in this direction (we 
have, indeed, no instance in the !NT. T.), nraXaios 
diverges in another, of which the N. T. usage will 
supply a large number of examples. That which 
has existed long has been exposed to, and in many 
cases will have suffered from, the wrongs and in- 
juries of time ; it will be old in the sense of more 
or less worn out ; and it is always iraXaios, never 
apXaios, which is employed to express old in such 
a sense as this. 1 Thus Ifidriov irakaibv (Matt. 

1 The same lies, or may lie, in ' vetus,' as witnesses Tertullian's 



86 SYNONYMS OF THE 

ix. 16) ; acncol irdXaiol (Matt. ix. IT) ; so ogkovs 
Trcikaiovs teal Kareppcoyora^ (Josh. ix. 10) ; irdkaia 
pcbKT] (Jer. xlv. 11). In the same way, while ol 
ap^aioi could never express the old men of a living 
generation as compared with the young of the 
same, ol iraKaioi continually bears this sense ; thus 
z>eo? rje irdkaios (Homer, II. xiv. 108, and often) ; 
iroXvereh icaX nrcCkaioi (Philo, De Yit. Cont. 8 ; cf. 
Job xv. 10). It is the same with the words formed 
on 7ra\cu6<; : thus Heb. viii. 13 : to Be 7ra\cuovp,evov 
teal <y7]pdo~fcov, iyyvs dcpavio-jjiov ; cf. Heb. i. 11 ; 
Luke xii. 33 ; Ecclus. xiv. IT ; while Plato joins 
7ra\aL0T7)<; and aairporT)^ together {JRejp. x. 609 e\ 
cf. Aristophanes, Plut. 1086 : Tpv% ivaKaia ical 
Gairpa). As often as irakaios is employed to con- 
note this worn out, or wearing out, by age, it will 
absolutely demand Kaivbs as its opposite (Mark ii. 
21 ; Heb. viii. 13), as it will also sometimes have it 
on other occasions (Herod, ix. 26, bis) ; when this 
does not he in the word, there is nothing to prevent 
i/eo? being set over against it (Lev. xxvi. 10 ; Homer, 
Od. ii. 293; Plato, Cratijlus, 418 5; ^Eschylus, 
Eumenides, TT8, 808) ; and kclivos against apyalos 
(2 Cor. v. IT ; Philo, De Yit Con. 10). 

pregnant antithesis (Adv. Marc. i. 8) : ' Deus si est vetus, non erit ; 
si est novus, non fuit.' 



NEW TESTAMENT. 87 



§ xviii. — /3o>/<to?, Ovaiao-rrjpLOV. 

I have noticed elsewhere, iii dealing with the 
words iTpocprjTevco and fjuavTevo/Acu (Synonyms of the 
N. T., part I. § vi.), the accuracy with which in 
several instances the lines of demarcation between 
the sacred and profane, between the true religion 
and the false, are maintained in the words which 
are severally appropriated to each, and not per- 
mitted to be promiscuously used for the one and 
for the other alike. We have another example of 
this same precision here, in the fact of the constant 
use in the N". T. of OvaiaarripLov, occurring as it 
does more than twenty times, for the altar of the 
true God, while on the one occasion when a heathen 
altar has need to be named (Acts xvii. 23) the word 
is changed, and /3a>yii6? in the place of Ovacacmjpcov 
is employed. 

But indeed this distinction is common to all 
sacred and ecclesiastical Greek, both to that which 
goes before, and that which follows, the writings 
of the New Covenant. Thus so resolute were the 
Septuagint Translators to mark the distinction 
between the altars of the true God and those on 
which abominable things were offered, that there 
is every reason to think they invented the word 



88 SYNONYMS OF THE 

Ovo-iao-Ti'ipiov for the purpose of maintaining this 
distinction ; being indeed herein more nice than 
the inspired Hebrew Scriptures themselves, in 
which nzT^a does duty for the one and for the other 
(Lev. i. 9 ; Isai. xvii. 8). I need hardly observe 
that dvo-iao-Trjpiov, properly the neuter of Ovcna- 
crrrjpLo^, as tXao-rypwv (Exod. xxv. 17; Heb. ix. 5) 
of 'Ckao-TrjpLos, nowhere occurs in classical Greek ; 
and it is this fact of its having been coined by the 
Septuagint Translators one must suppose that Philo 
has in mind when he affirms that Moses invented 
the word {Be Vit. Mos. iii. 10). At the same time 
the writers of the Septuagint do not themselves 
invariably observe this distinction. Thus there are 
four occasions, two in the Second Book of Mac- 
cabees (ii. 20 ; xiii. 8), and two in Ecclesiasticus 
(1. 13., 16), where /3co/jlo<; is used of the altar of the 
true God ; these two Books however, it must be 
remembered, hellenize very much ; it is employed 
in like manner occasionally by Philo, thus De Vit 
Mos. iii. 29: and 6v(jiacnr)piov is sometimes used 
of an idol altar ; thus Judg. ii. 2 ; vi. 25 ; 2 Kin. 
xvi. 10 P and in other places. Still these are quite 
the rare exceptions, and sometimes the antago- 
nism between the words comes out with the most 
marked emphasis. It does so, for example, at 1 
Mace. i. 59,, where the historian recounts how the 
servants of Antiochus offered sacrifices to Olympian 



NEW TESTAMENT. VX 

Jove on the altar which had been built over the 
altar of the God of Israel : QvcriuZpvTes eVl tov 
fico/jibv, b; r\v eVl tov Qvaiaajv^iov. Our Trans- 
lators here are put to their shifts, and are obliged 
to render jB&ixos ' idol altar,' and dvcriaarrjpiov 
1 altar.' In the Latin, of course, there is no such 
difficulty ; for at a very early day the Church 
adopted ' altare ' as the word expressive of her 
altar, and assigned i ara ' exclusively to heathen 
uses. Thus Cyprian {Ep. 63) expresses his wonder 
at the profane boldness of one of the ' thurificati,' 
or those who in time of persecution had consented 
to save their lives by burning incense before a 
heathen idol, — that he should afterwards have 
dared, without having obtained the Church's for- 
giveness, to continue his ministry — • quasi post 
aras diaboli accedere ad altare Dei fas sit.' I said 
the distinction between /3o>/z6? and Ovcriao-Trjpiov, 
first established in the Septuagint, and recognized in 
the 1ST. T., was afterwards observed in ecclesiastical 
Greek ; for the Church has still her Qvaia alvkaew^ 
(Heb. xiii. 15) and her dvaia ava/ivrjo-ecos, or rather 
her avd/jLV7]<ri<; Overlap, and therefore her OvcriaGTrj- 
piov still. This may be seen in the following pas- 
sage of Chrysostom {In 1 Ep. ad Cor. Horn. 24), in 
which Christ is assumed to be speaking: ware el 
aijJLdTos i7ridvfj,els, fir) tov twv elScoXcov ficofibv tS 
tcov akoycov fyovcp, aXka to OvaiaaTrjpiov to ifibv 



90 SYNONYMS OF THE 

TO) ijjuw <f)OLvi(jae at/jLarc. Compare Mede, Works, 
1672, p. 391 ; and Augnsti, Handbuch d. Christl. 
Archceol. vol. i. p. 412. 



§ xix. — /jLeravoea), fMera/JLeKo/jbai. 

It is a frequent statement of our early theo- 
logians that ixerdvoia and fjcerafieXeca, with their 
several verbs, fieravoelv and fiera/jbeXeo-Oac, are used 
with this distinction, that where it is intended to 
express the mere desire that the done might be 
undone, accompanied with regrets or even with 
remorse, but with no effective change of heart, 
there the latter words are employed ; but where a 
true change of heart toward God, there the former. 
It was Beza, I think, who first strongly urged this 
difference between the words. He was followed 
by many; thus see Spanheim, Dub. Evang. vol. 
iii. dub. 9; and Chilling worth (Sermons oefore 
Charles I. p. 11) : ' To this purpose it is worth the 
observing, that when the Scripture speaks of that 
kind of repentance, which is only sorrow for some- 
thing done, and wishing it undone, it constantly 
useth the word /uLera/jbiXeia, to which forgiveness of 
sins is nowhere promised. So it is written of Judas 
the son of perdition, Matt, xxvii. 3, fierafieXrjOeU 
airerpe-^re, he repented and went and hanged him- 



NEW TESTAMENT. 91 

self, and so constantly in other places. But that re- 
pentance to which remission of sins and salvation 
is promised, is perpetually expressed by the word 
fjLerdvoia, which signitieth a thorough change of the 
heart and soul, of the life and actions.' 

Let me, before proceeding further, correct a 
slight inaccuracy in this statement. Merajxekeia 
nowhere occurs in the !N". T. ; only once, if we may 
trust Trommius, in the Old (Hos. xi. 8). So far as 
we deal with New Testament synonyms, it is pro- 
perly between the verbs alone that the comparison 
can be instituted and a distinction sought to be 
drawn ; though, indeed, what is good of them will 
be good of their substantives as well. The state- 
ment will need also a certain qualification, as will 
presently appear. Jeremy Taylor allows this. His 
words — they occur in his great treatise, On the 
Doctrine and Practice of Repentance, ch. ii. § 1, 2 
— are as follows : ' The Greeks use two words to 
express this duty, /xerajneXeta and [xerdvoLa. Mera- 
jieXeia is from fieTa/jLekelo-Ocu, post factum angi et 
cruciari, to be afflicted in mind, to be troubled for 
our former folly ; it is Bvaapearrja^ iirl ire7rpa- 
r/jjLevots, saith Phavorinus, a being displeased for 
what we have done, and it is generally used for all 
sorts of repentance ; but more properly to signify 
either the beginning of a good, or the whole state 
of an ineffective, repentance. In the first sense we 



92 SYNONYMS OF THE 

find it in St. Matthew, vfxeh Be IBovres ov fj,ere- 
[xekrjOriTe varepov rod iriGrevaai avrw, and ye, see- 
ing, did not repent that ye might believe Him. Of 
the second sense we have an example in Judas, 
fieTafiekrjOeL^ aireaTpe-fye, he " repented " too, but 
the end of it was he died with anguish and de- 
spair. . . . There is in this repentance a sorrow 
for what is done, a disliking of the thing with its 
consequents and effect, and so far also it is a change 
of mind. But it goes no further than so far to 
change the mind that it brings trouble and sorrow, 
and such things as are the natural events of it. . . . 
When there was a difference made, fierdvoia was 
the better word, which does not properly signify 
the sorrow for having done amiss, but something 
that is nobler than it, but brought in at the gate of 
sorrow. For y Kara Sebv Xi;7r?7, a godly sorrow, 
that is fiera/xiXeta, or the first beginning of repent- 
ance, fjLerdvoiav Karepyd^erai, worketh this better 
repentance, fierdvoiav djbbera/jieXrjTov and eh acorr]- 
piav.' Presently, however, he admits that 'how- 
ever the grammarians may distinguish them, yet 
the words are used promiscuously,' and that it is 
impossible to draw so rigid a line of distinction 
between them as some have attempted to do. This 
to a considerable extent is true, yet not so true but 
that a predominant use of one and of the other can 
very clearly be traced. 



NEW TESTAMENT. 93 

Meravoelv is properly known after, as irpovoelv 
to know hefore, and fierdvoca after or later know- 
ledge, as irpovoia foreknowledge ; which is well 
brought out by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 
ii. 6) : el i<f> oh rjfiaprev /juerevorjo-ev, el arvvecriv 
ekaftev icj) oh eiTTaiaev, zeal fiereyvco, oirep ecrri, 
fiera ravra eyvco ' /3paSeia yap yvayaLS, /juerdvoia. 
At its next step fjuerdvoia signifies the change of 
mind consequent on this after-knowledge. At its 
third, regret for the course pursued, resulting from 
the change of mind consequent on this after-know- 
ledge ; ' passio qugedam animi quae veniat de offensa 
sentential prioris,' as Tertullian (De Pwnit. 1) af- 
firms, was all that the heathen understood by it. 
At this stage of its meaning it is found connected 
with Srjyfios (Plutarch, Quom. Am. ah Adul. 12). 
Last of all it signifies change of conduct for the 
future, springing from all this. There is not of 
necessity any ethical meaning in the word in any 
of these stages of meaning — the change of mind, 
and of action upon this following, may be for the 
worse as well as for the better ; thus Plutarch 
(Sept. Sap. Conv. 21) tells us of two murderers, 
who, having spared a child, afterwards ' repented ' 
(/jLerevorjcrav) and sought to slay it ; /jberajxeXeia is 
used by him in the same sense of a repenting of 
good (De Ser. Num. Vin. 11); so that here also 
Tertullian had right in his complaints (De Pcenit, 



94: SYNONYMS OF THE 

1) : ' Quam ante in in poenitentise actu irrationaliter 
deversentur [ethnici], vel imo isto satis erit expe- 
dire, cum illam etiam in bonis actis suis adhibent. 
Poenitet fidei, amoris, simplicitatis, patientise, mise- 
ricordige, prout quid in ingratiam cecidit.' The re- 
gret may be, and often is, quite unconnected with 
the sense of any wrong done, of the violation of any 
moral law, may be simply what our fathers were 
wont to call ' hadiwist ' (had-I-wist better, I should 
have acted otherwise) ; thus see Plutarch, De Lib. 
Ed. 14 ; Sept. Sap. Conv. 12 ; De Sober. Anim. 3 : 
\v7T7] hi a\yr]S6vo^, t)v fierdvoiav ovo/id^o/nev, ' dis- 
pleasure with oneself, proceeding from pain, which 
we call repentance ' (Holland). That it had some- 
times, though rarely, an ethical meaning, none 
would of course deny, in which sense Plutarch (De 
Ser. Num. Vin. 6) has a passage in wonderful har- 
mony with Rom. ii. 4. 

It is only after fierdvota has been taken up into 
the uses of Scripture, or of writers dependent on 
Scripture, that it comes predominantly to mean a 
change of mind, taking a wiser view of the past, 
avvaicrOriGLs ^f%^)? icj> oh eirpa^ev droiroc^ (Pha- 
vorinus), a regret for the ill done in that past, and 
out of all this a change of life for the better. This 
is all imported into, does not etymologically nor 
yet by primary usage lie in, the word. Not very 
frequent in the Septuagint (yet see Ecclus. xliv. 15 ; 



NEW TESTAMENT. 95 

Wisd. xi. 24 ; xii. 10, 19 ; and for the verb, Jer. 
viii. 6), it is frequent in Philo, who joins /xerdvota 
with fieXricoo-L? (De Ahrah. 3), explaining it as 
717)65 to fteXriov f) jjLeraftoXr} (ibid, and De Pmn. 2) ; 
while in the 35T. T. fxeravoelv and /juerdvoia are never 
used in other than an ethical sense. It is singular 
how seldom they occur in the writings of St. Paul, 
fieravoelv only once, and jierdvoia not more than 
four times. 

But while thus /xeravoelv and fierdvota gradually 
advanced in depth and fulness of meaning, till they 
became the fixed and recognized words to express 
that mighty change in mind, heart and life wrought 
by the Spirit of God ; ' such a virtuous alteration 
of the mind and purpose as begets a like virtuous 
change in the life and practice ' (Kettlewell) as we 
call repentance ; the like honour was very partially 
vouchsafed to fiera/jbeXeia and fieTafjueXeaOcu. The 
first, explained by Plutarch as r) iirl rat? rjSoval^, 
ocrai TrapdvofjLOL teal dfcparels, ala^vvrj (De Gen. Soc. 
22), associated by him with fiapvdvjju'a (An Vit. ad 
Inf. 2), by Plato with Tapayjq (Rep. ix. 577 e), has 
been noted as never occurring in the E". T. ; the 
second only five times; and on one of these to 
designate the sorrow of this world which worketh 
death, of Judas Iscariot (Matt, xxvii. 3), and on 
another expressing not the repentance of men, but 
of God (Heb. vii. 21) ; and this while fierdvoia oc- 



96 SYKONYMS OF THE 

curs some five and twenty, and fieravoelv some five 
and thirty times. Those who deny that either in 
profane or sacred Greek any traceable difference 
existed between the words are able in the former 
to point to passages where fieraiieketa is used in all 
those senses which have been here claimed for 
fierdvoia, to others where the two are employed as 
convertible terms, and both to express remorse 
(Plutarch, De Tranq. Anim. 19) ; in the latter to 
passages in the IN". T. where jjueraiiekeaOai implies 
all that /jberavoelv would have implied (Matt. xxi. 
29, 32). But all this freely admitted, there does 
remain, both in sacred and profane use, a Yerj dis- 
tinct preference for ixerdvota as the expression of 
the nobler repentance. This we might, indeed, 
have expected beforehand, from the relative ety- 
mological value of the words. He who has 
changed Ms mind about the past is in the way to 
change everything ; he who has an after care may 
have nothing but a selfish dread of the conse- 
quences of what he Las done; so that the long 
debate on the relation of these words with one 
another may be summed up in the words of Ben- 
gel, which seem to me to express the exact truth 
of the matter; allowing a difference, but not urging 
it too far {Gnomon N. T. ; 2 Cor. vii. 10): <Yi 
etymi fjuerdvoia proprie est mentis, fierafjuekeLa vo- 
luntatis ; quod ilia sententiam, tec solicitudinem 



NEW TESTAMENT. 97 

vel potius studium mutatum dicat Utrumque 

ergo dicitur de eo, quern facti consiliive poenitet, sive 
poenitentia bona sit sive mala, sive malge rei sive 
bonae, sive cum mutatione actionum in posterum, 
sive citra earn. Yeruntamen si usum spectes, fxera- 
fjueXeia plerunque est fieaov vocabulum, et refertur 
potissimum ad actiones singulares : fxerdvoia vero, 
in N. T. prsesertim, in bonam partem sumitur, quo 
notatur poenitentia totius vitse ipsorumque nostri 
quodammodo : sive tota ilia beata mentis post erro- 
rem et peccata reminiscentia, cum omnibus affecti- 
bus earn ingredientibus, quam fructus digni sequun- 
tur. Hinc fit ut fieravoeiv ssepe in imperativo 
ponatur, fierafMeXela-Oai nunquam : ceteris autem 
locis, ubicunque [xerdvoia legitur, fierafAekeiav possis 
substituere : sed non contra.' 



§ xx. — poptyri, cr^rj/jia, I8ia. 

Mop(j)rj is ' form,' ' forma,' ' gestalt ; ' (Tyfiiia is 
c fashion,' ' habitus,' * figur ; ' IBea, 6 appearance,' 
' species.' The first two, which occur not unfre- 
quently together (Plutarch, Symp. viii. 2, 3), are 
objective; for the form ancl fashion of a thing 
would exist, were it alone in the universe, and 
whether there were any \o behold it or no. The 
other is subjective, the appearance of a thing im- 
5* 



98 SYNONYMS OF THE 

plying some to whom this appearance is made; 
there must needs be a seer before there can be a 
seen. 

To consider in the first place the distinction 
between [Mop^rj and o-^rj/xa. The passage in which 
we may best study this distinction, and at the same 
time appreciate its importance, is that great doc- 
trinal passage in the Philippians (ii. 6 — 8), where 
St. Paul speaks of the Son of God before his Incar- 
nation as subsisting " in the form of God " (iv /iop- 
cj)fj 0eov virapywv), as assuming at his Incarnation 
" the form of a servant " {jiopffiv 8ov\ou Xaftcov), 
and after his Incarnation and during his walk upon 
earth as ' c being found in fashion as a man " (c^- 
(iarc evpedels C09 avQpumoi). It was the custom of 
the Fathers to urge the first phrase, iv fiop^fj ©eov 
v7rdpxcov, against the Arians, and the Lutherans 
did the same against the Socinians, as a ' dictum 
probans' of the absolute divinity of the Son of 
God ; that is, they affirmed fiop(p7] here to be equi- 
valent to oucria or (pvais. This asserted equivalence 
cannot, however, as is now generally acknowledged, 
be maintained. Doubtless there does lie in the 
words a proof of the divinity of Christ, but imr 
plicitly and not explicitly. Mopfaj is not = ovaia 1 
at the same time none could be iv fiopcj)fj Qeov who 
was not God, as is well put by Bengel : ' Forma 
Dei non est natura divina, sed tamen is qui in forma 



NEW TESTAMENT. 99 

Dei extabat, Dens est ; ' and this becanse fioptyr), 
like the Latin * forma,' the German ' gestalt,' sig- 
nifies the form as it is the utterance of the inner 
life ; not being, bnt manner of being, or better still, 
manner of existence ; and only God conld have the 
manner of existence of God. But He who had thus 
been from eternity iv fiopcfrf} ©eov, took at his Incar- 
nation fioptfirjv BovXov. The verity of his taking 
of our flesh is herein implied ; there was nothing 
docetic, nothing imaginary about it. His manner 
of existence was now that of a BovXos, that is, of a 
SovXos tov Qeov : for with all our Lord's humilia- 
tions He was never a SovXos avOpdmwv ; their htd- 
fcovog He may have been, and from time to time 
eminently was (John xiii. 4, 5 ; Matt. xx. 28), this 
is part of his Taireivcoo-is mentioned in the next 
verse ; but their SoOXo? never. It was with respect 
of God He so emptied Himself of his glory, that, 
from that manner of existence in which He thought 
it not robbery to be equal with God, He became his 
servant. 

The next clause, " and being found in fashion 
{ <7 XVI JLaTL ) as a man," is very instructive for the dis- 
tinguishing of o"xf}fia from nopfyrj. The verity of 
the Son's Incarnation was expressed in the fiop^v 
SovXov Xaftcbv. These words which follow do but 
express the outward facts which came under the 
knowledge of his fellow-men, with therefore an em- 



100 SYNOJHTMS OF THE 

pliasis on evpeOefc : He was by men found in fashion 
as a man, the (TXVI JLa nere signifying his whole out- 
ward presentation, as Bengel puts it well : i X%r)p-a, 
habitus, cultus, vestitus, victus, gestus, sermones et 
actiones.' In none of these did there appear any 
difference between Him and the other children of 
men. Xyr\[ia is the outline, as Plutarch {De Plac. 
Phil. 14) describes it : early iirifyaveia kclv irepi- 
ypacf>rj /cal irepas aco/xaro?. 

The distinction between the words comes out 
very clearly in the compound verbs /jLeraa-xvf ia - 
tl&lv and fxerafxop^ovv. Thus if I were to change 
a Dutch garden into an Italian, this would be 
li£Tacr){ri\jucvTi(7ixQs : but if I were to transform a 
garden into something wholly different, say a gar- 
den into a city, this would be fierafiopcfxoarts. It 
is possible for Satan /i6ra<7xvf jLaT ^ eLl ' himself into 
an angel of light (2 Cor. xi. 14) ; he can take all the 
outward semblance of such ; the fi6rafiop(j)ova6ai 
would be impossible ; it would involve an inward- 
ness of change, a change not external but internal, 
not of accidents but of essence, which lies quite 
beyond his power. How fine and subtle is the 
variation of words at Rom. xii. 2 ; though < con- 
formed ' and ' transformed ' ' in our Translation 

1 The Authorized Version is the first -which uses ' transformed ' 
here. Wiclif and the Rheims, both following closely the Vulgate, 
' transfigured,' and the intermediate Reformed Versions, ' changed 



NEW TESTAMENT. 101 

Lave failed adequately to represent it. ' Do not 
fall in,' says the Apostle, ' with, the fleeting fashions 
of this world, nor he yourselves fashioned to them 
(jit) crvaxnfiaTL^eaOe)^ but undergo a deep abiding 
change {aXkd pLerafiop^ovaOe) by the renewing of 
your mind, such as the Spirit of God alone can 
work in you (2 Cor. iii. 18).' Theodoret, comment- 
ing on these words, calls particular attention to this 
variation of the word used, a variation which it 
would task the highest skill of the English scholar 
adequately to reproduce in his own language. 
Among much else which is interesting, he says: 
*EBiBao~Kev 6<rov 777309 ra irapovra rrjs aperrjs to 
Btdcpopov ' ravra yap i/cdXecre a^fia, rrjv aperrjv Be 
jj,op<f)r)v ' rj fiopcj^r) Be aXrjOoov it pay pbdrcov crrjfAavTifcr}, 
to Be o"xfi/jLa evBiakvrov ^prj/jia. Meyer perversely 
enough, 'Beide "Worte stehen im Gegensatze nur 
durch die Prapositionen, ohne differenz des Stamm- 
Yerba ; ' and compare Fritzsche, in loc. One can 
understand a commentator overlooking, but scarcely 
one denying, the significance of this change. For 
the very different uses of the words, see Plutarch, 
Quom. Adul. ah Amic. 7, in which chapter both 
occur. 

At the resurrection Christ pLeTaa^fiartcrei the 

into the fashion of.' If the distinctions I am here seeking to draw 
are correct, and if they stand good in English as well as Greek, 
' transformed ' is not the word. 



102 SYNONYMS OF THE 

bodies of his saints (Phil. iii. 21 ; cf. 1 Cor. xv. 
53), on which saying Calov remarks, 'Ille /.cera- 
Gyr\liaTiGixbs non suhstautialem mutationem, sed 
accidentalem, non ratione quidditaiis corporis nos- 
tri, sed ratione qualitaium, salva quidditate, im- 
portat : ' but the changes of heathen deities into 
wholly other shapes are fjLeTafiopcjxco-eLs. In the 
yu-eracr^/zaTtcr/io? there is transition, but no abso- 
lute solution of continuity. The butterfly, pro- 
phetic image of our resurrection, is immeasurably 
more beautiful than the grub, yet has been duly 
unfolded from it ; but when Proteus changes him- 
self into a flame, a wild beast, a running stream 
(Yirgil, Georg. iy. 442), each of these disconnected 
with all that went before, there is then not a 
change merely of the cyr^ia, but of the \xop$r]. 
All the conditions of our Lord's own body under- 
went so wonderful an alteration at the Resurrection 
that we must not wonder to hear that after this 
He appeared to his disciples iv irepa ftopifif} (Mark 
xvi. 12), though that phrase seems at first to express 
more even than that change would have involved. 
It is only, however, in keeping with the fierefiop- 
(j)co0r) of Matt. xvii. 2 ; Mark ix. 2 ; this change 
upon the Mount being a prophetic anticipation of 
that which should be. 

The fiopcfrr} then, it may be assumed, is of the 



NEW TESTAMENT. 103 

essence of a thing ; 1 we cannot conceive of the 
thing as apart from this its formality, to use 
' formality ' in its old logical sense ; the <rxnf ia is 
of its accident, having to do not with the ' quid- 
clitas,' bnt the ' qualitas,' and, however it may 
change, leaving the ' quidditas ' untouched, the 
thing itself essentially or formally the same as it 
was before ; as one has said, fiopfyrj fyvcrem, <ryf\iia 
efe<y? : thus o-^fifia /3aai,\i/c6v (Lucian, Pise. 35) is 
the whole outward array and adornment of a mon- 
arch — diadem, tiara, sceptre, robe (cf. his Hermot. 
86) — all which he might lay aside and remain king 
notwithstanding. It in no sort belongs or adheres 
to the man as a part of himself. He may put it on, 
and again put it off. Thus Menander (Meineke, 
Frag. Com. p. 985): 

irpaov KaKovpyos cx^A 1 ' vireiaeAOdw b.v)]p 
KeKpvfi/iiwr] KtiTai irayis rols ttX^ctloi/. 

Thus, too, the <TXVl JLa T °v koct/jlov passes away (1 Cor. 
vii. 31), the image being here probably drawn from 
the shifting scenes of a theatre, but the Koa/xos itself 
abides ; there is no TeXo? tov koo-jjLov, but only tov 
aloivos. 

1 ' La forme est necessairement en rapport avec la matiere ou 
avec le fond. La figure au contraire est plus independante des ob- 
jets ; se concoit a part ' (Lafaye, Syn. Franc, p. 617). 



104: SYNONYMS OF THE 

There is so far a corresponding use in Latin of 
the words i forma ' and ' figura,' that while ' figura 
formae ' occurs not rarely (' veterem formce servare 
figuram ; ' and cf. Cicero, Nat. Deor. i. 32), ' forma 
iigurge ? not at all (see Doderlein, Latein. Syn. vol. 
iii. p. 87). Contrast too in English ' deformed ' 
and ' disfigured.' A hunchback is ' deformed,' a 
man that has been beaten about the face is ' dis- 
figured ; ' one is for life, the other may be only for 
a few days. In 'transformed' and 'transfigured' 
it is easy to recognize the same distinction. There 
are some valuable remarks on the distinction be- 
tween /jLopcj)!] and (ryj]^d in The Journal of Clas- 
sical and Sacred Philology, No. 7, pp. 113, 116, 
121. 

'Ihea occurs only once in the !N". T. (Matt, xxviii. 
3). Our Translators have there rendered it ' coun- 
tenance,' as at 2 Mace. iii. 16 ' face.' It is not a 
happy translation ; ' appearance ' would have been 
much better ; for Ihea is exactly this, ' species sub 
oculos cadens,' not the thing itself, but the thing as 
beholden ; thus Plato {Rep. ix. 588 e), TrXdrre iheav 
Orjplov ttolklXov, fashion to thyself the image of a 
manifold beast ; so Ihea rod irpoo-dmov, the look of 
the countenance (Plutarch, Pyrr. 3, and often), Ihea 
kclKos, fair to look on (Pindar, Olyrrvp. xi. 122), 
Xtovos Ihea, the appearance of snow (Philo, Quod 
Pet. Pot. Ins. 48) ; but Ihea never bears the mean- 



NEW TESTAMENT. 105 

ing which our Translators have given it; rather 
that which Plutarch ascribes to it in a definition, 
of which all the earlier parts may be past by, as 
belonging to the word in its philosophic use, and 
of which the last clause alone concerns us here (De 
Plac. Phil. i. 9) : ISia icrrlv ovcrla dcrcafiaros, avrrj 
/juev fir) vcjyecTTCoo-a tcaO] avrrjv, elKovi^ovaa Be ra? 
ajji6p(pov<; v\a<$, teal air la jivo/jL6Vt} t?}? rovTcovSei^eco^. 
The word in all its uses is constant to the definition 
of this last clause, and to the ISelv lying at its own 
base ; oftentimes it is manifestly so, as in the follow- 
ing quotation from Philo, which is further curious 
as showing how widely his doctrine of the Logos 
differed from St. John's, was in fact a denial of it 
on its most important side : 6 8e virepavw tovtcov 
[tcov %epovf3[fi\ Aoyo? 6eio<; els oparrjv ov te rfkOev 
ISiav {De Prof. 19). On the distinction between 
eZSo? and Ihea, and how far in the Platonic philoso- 
phy there is a distinction between them at all, see 
Stallbaum's note on Plato's Republic, x. 596 ~b ; 
Donaldson's Cratylus, 3d ed. p. 105 ; and Professor 
Thompson's note on Archer Butler's Lectures, vol. 
ii. p. 127. 



5* 



106 SYNONYMS OF THE 



§ xxi. — tJti^/co?, aapKiicos. 

Wv%ik6s occurs six times in the !N". T. ; on three 
of these it has no distinctly ethical meaning attach- 
ed to it ; but the meanness of the o-cb/ia ^vyiKov 
which the believer now bears about with him is 
contrasted with the glory of the spiritual which he 
shall bear (1 Cor. xv. 44 Ms, 45). On the other 
three occasions a moral emphasis rests on the word, 
and always a most depreciatory. Thus St. Paul de- 
clares the 'v/ri^fc/eo? receives not the things of the 
Spirit of God (1 Cor. ii. 14) ; St. James character- 
izes the wisdom which is -^vyi^ as also i7rlyeios 
and Bai/uLovLcoSr]? (iii. 15) ; St. Jude explains the 
^vyiKoi as irvevjJLa juurj eyovTes (ver. 19). The word 
nowhere appears in the Septuagint, but tyv%iK(*ys in 
the sense of ' heartily ' twice (2 Mace. iv. 37 ; xiv. 
24). 

It is at first with something of surprise that we 
find -^ir^/co? employed in these senses, and keeping 
this company ; and the modern fashion of talking 
about the soul, as though it were the highest part 
of man, does not make this surprise the less ; for it 
would rather lead us to expect to find it grouped 
with TrvevjjLaTLKos, as though there were only light 
shades of difference between them. But indeed 



NEW TESTAMENT. 107 

this is characteristic of the inner differences be- 
tween Christian and heathen, and indicative of 
those better gifts and graces which the Dispensa- 
tion of the Spirit has brought into the world. Tv- 
%fc/eo?, continually used as the highest in later classi- 
cal Greek literature — I do not think the word is 
older than Aristotle — being there opposed to arapta- 
kos, or rather, where there was no ethical antithesis, 
to (tco/jlcltikos (Plutarch, De Plac. Phil. i. 9 ; Aris- 
totle, Ethic. Nic. iii. 10. 2), and constantly employ- 
ed in praise as the noblest part of man (Plutarch, 
JYe Suav. Vivi sec. Epic. 9 and 14), must come down 
from its high estate, another so much greater than it 
being installed in the chief est place of all ; for in- 
deed that old philosophy knew of nothing higher 
than the soul of man ; but Revelation of the Spirit 
of God, and of that, indwelling and making his 
habitation with men, and calling out an answering 
spirit in them. According to it the ^f%^, no less 
than the crdp^, belongs to the lower region of man's 
being ; and if a double use of tyv yr\ in Scripture (as 
at Matt. xvi. 26 ; Mark viii. 35) requires a certain 
caution in this statement, it is at any rate plain that 
tyvyiKos is not a word of honour 1 any more than 

1 Hilary has not quite, however nearly, extricated himself from 
this notion, and in the following passage certainly ascribes more to 
the ^v%ik6s than the Scriptures do, however plainly he sets him in 
opposition to the irvevfiaruc6s (Tract, in Ps. xiv. 3) : ' Apostolus et 



108 SYNONYMS OF THE 

aap/atcos, and is an epithet quite as freely applied to 
this lower. The t/ti^/co? of Scripture is one for 
whom the ^jrvxv is the highest motive power of life 
and action ; in whom the irvevfia, as the organ of 
the divine Ilvevfjia, is suppressed, dormant, for the 
time as good as extinct ; whom the operation of this 
divine Hvev\ia has never lifted into the region of 
spiritual things (Eom. vii. 14 ; viii. 1 ; Jude 19). 
For a good collection of passages from the Greek 
Fathers in which the word is employed in this sense, 
see Suicer, Thes. s. v. 

It may be said that the aapKi/cos and the ^v%6- 
kos alike, in the language of Scripture, stand in op- 
position to the irvevfiaTiKo^. Both epithets ascribe 
to him concerning whom they are predicated a ru- 
ling principle antagonistic to the 7rvevfia, though 
they do not ascribe the same antagonism. When 
St. Paul describes the Ephesians as " fulfilling the 

carnalem [<rapKiKoy] hominem posuit, et animalem [\pvx^6y], et spiri- 
talem [irvevjxaTiK6v] ; carnalem, belluse modo divina et humana negli- 
gentem, cujus vita corporis famula sit, negotiosa cibo, somno, libidine, 
Animalis autem, qui ex judicio sensus humani quid decens honestum 
que sit, sentiat, atque ab omnibus vitiis animo suo auctore se referat 
suo proprio sensu utilia et honesta dijudicans ; ut pecuniam spernat 
ut jejuniis parcus sit, ut ambitione careat, ut voluptatibus resistat 
Spiritalis autem est, cui superiora ilia ad Dominum studia sint, et hoc 
quod agit, per scientiam Dei agat, intelligens et cognoscens quae sit 
voluntas Ejus, et sciens quae ratio sit a Deo carnis assumptse, qui 
crucis triumphus, quae mortis potestas, quae in virtute resurrectionis 
operatic' Compare Irenaeus, v. 6. 



NEW TESTAMENT. 100 

desires of the flesh and of the mind" (Ephes. ii. 3), 
in the first lie describes them as crap/ci/col, in the se- 
cond as yjrvxifcol. For, indeed, in men imregenerate 
there are two forms of the life lived apart from God ; 
and, though every nnregenerate man partakes of 
both, yet in some one is more predominant, and in 
some the other. There are crap/ci/col, in whom the 
oap% is more the ruling principle, and -tyvxiicol, in 
whom the ^f%»?. It is quite true that adp^ is often 
used in Scripture as covering the entire domain in 
which sin springs up and in which it moves ; thus 
the epya t?}? crap/cos (Gal. iv. 19 — 21) are not merely 
those sinful works that are wrought in and through 
the body, but those which move in the sphere and 
region of the mind as well ; more than one half of 
them belong to the latter class. Still the w r ord, 
covering at times the whole region of that in man 
which is alienated from God and from the life in 
God, must accept its limitation when the yfrvxn is 
brought in to claim that which is peculiarly its 
own. 

There is an admirable discussion on the differ- 
ence between the words, in Bishop Reynolds' Latin 
sermon preached at Oxford, with the title Animalis 
Homo. I quote the most important paragraph bear- 
ing on the matter in hand : ' Yerum cum homo ex 
carne et anima constet, sitque anima pars hominis 
prsestantior, quamvis ssepius irregenitos, propter 



110 SYNONYMS OF THE 

appetitum in. vitia pronum, atque praecipites con- 
cupiscentiae motus, adptca et o-apiciKovs Apostolus 
noster appellet ; hie tamen hujusmodi homines a 
praestantiore parte denominat, ut eos se intelligere 
ostendat, non qui libidinis mancipia sunt, et crassis 
concupiscentiis vel nativuni lumen obruunt, (Imjus- 
modi enim homines aXoya ^coa vocat Apostolus, 
2 Pet. ii. 12), sed homines sapientiae studio deditos, 
et qui ea sola, quae stulta et absurda sunt, rejicere 
solent. Hie itaque ^v^l/coi sunt quotquot to irvevfia 
ovk e^pvat (Jud. 10), utcunque alias exquisitissimis 
naturae dotibus praefulgeant, utcunque potissimam 
partem, nempe animam, omnigena eruditione exco- 
lant, et rectissime ad praescriptum rationis vitam 
dirigant. Denique eos hie ^vx^ov^ vocat, quos 
supra Sapientes, Scribas, Disquisitores, et istius 
seculi principes appellaverat, ut excludatur quid- 
quid est nativae aut acquisitae perfectionis, quo na- 
turae vinous assurgere possit ratio hum ana. Wy^i- 

KOS, 6 TO ITCLV TOU XoyiCTfjLOlS T?}? 1^1^?}? SfcSoU?, KOb flT} 

vofii^cov dvcodev BeicrOcu fioydeias, ut recte Chrysosto- 
mus : qui denique nihil in se eximium habet, praeter 
animam rationalem, cujus solius lucem ductumque 
sequitur.' I add a few words of Grotins to the same 
effect (Annott. in A 7 ". T. ; 1 Cor. ii. 14) : < Eon idem 
est y\rv)^LKo^ dv6pco7ro<; et crapKiKos. Ww%ik6<$ est qui 
human ae tantum rationis luce ducitur, crapiciKos qui 
corporis affectibus gubernatur : sed plerunque yjrv- 



NEW TESTAMENT. Ill 

yiKoi aliqua in parte sunt crap/a/col, lit Graecoram 
philosoplii scortatores, puerorum corruptees, glorias 
aucupes, malediei, invidi. Yerum hie [1 Cor. ii. 
14] nihil aliud designatur quam homo humana tan- 
tum ration e nitens, quales erant Judseorum plerique 
et philosoplii Grsecorum.' 

The question, how to deal with tyvxueos in trans- 
lation, is certainly one not very easy to answer. 
' Soulish,' which some have proposed, would have 
the advantage of standing in the same relation to 
' soul ' that ^in^/eo? does to ^vxn an( i ' animalis ' to 
' anima ; ' but the word is hardly English, and would 
certainly convey no meaning at all to English read- 
ers. Wiclif rendered it ' beastly,' which, it need 
hardly be said, had nothing for him of the meaning 
of 0r)pia)hr]<;, but was simply == ' animal ' (he found 
' animalis ' in his Yulgate). The Rheims renders it 
' sensual,' which, at Jam. iii. 15 ; Jude 19, our 
Translators have adopted, substituting this for 
6 fleshly,' which was in Cranmer's and the Geneva 
Yersion. On the other three occasions of the word's 
occurrence they have rendered it ' natural.' These 
are both unsatisfactory renderings, and 'sensual' 
more so now than it was at the time when our Yer- 
sion was made, ' sensual ' and ' sensuality ' having 
considerably modified their meaning since that 
time. 



112 SYNONYMS OF THE 



§ xxii. — aapKiicoSy crapKivos. 

A discussion on the relations between ^v^l/co? 
and o-apKucos easily draws after it one on the rela- 
tions between the latter of these words and another 
form of the same, aapicivos, which occurs three, or 
perhaps four, times in the N. T. ; only once indeed 
in the received text (2 Cor. iii. 3) ; but the evidence 
is overwhelming for its further right to a place at 
Rom. vii. 14 ; Heb. vii. 16 ; while a preponderance 
of evidence is in favour of allowing cr&picivos to 
stand also at 1 Cor. iii. 1. 

Words with the termination in wo$, fierovcnaor- 
tikcl as they are called, designating, as they most 
frequently do, the substance of which anything is 
made (see Donaldson, Cratylus, p. 458; Winer, 
Gramm. % xvi. 3), are common in the IS". T. ; thus 
Ovivos, of thyine wood (Rev. xviii. 12), vdkivos, of 
glass, glassen (Rev. iv. 6), vaicivQivos (Rev. ix. 7), 
aicavdivos (Mark xv. 17). One of these is aapicivos, 
the only form of the word which classical antiquity 
recognized (o-apiciKos, like the Latin ' carnalis,' hav- 
ing been called out by the ethical necessities of the 
Church), and at 2 Cor. iii. 3 well rendered ' fleshy ; ' 
that is, having flesh for the substance and material 
of which it is made. I am not aware whether the 
word ' fleshen ' ever existed in the English language. 



NEW TESTAMENT. 113 

If it had done so, and still survived, it would be 
better still ; for ' fleshy ' may be ' carnosus,' as un- 
doubtedly may crapKivos as well (Plato, Legg. x. 
906 o ; Aristotle, Ethic. Me. iii. 9. 3), while ' flesh- 
en ' must be what crapicivos means here, namely 
1 carneus,' or made of flesh. Such a word may very 
probably have once existed in the language, a vast 
number of a like form having once been current, 
which have now passed away ; as, for example, 
' stonen,' ' hornen,' ' clayen ' (all in Wiclif's Bible), 
' threaden ' (Shakespeare), ' tinnen ' (Sylvester), ' mil- 
ken,' [ breaden,' ' reeden,' with many more (see my 
English East and Eresent, 5th edit. p. 165 sqq.). 
Their perishing is to be regretted, for they were 
often by no means superfluous. Thus we have given 
up ' stonen ' and kept only f stony,' while the Ger- 
mans retain both ' steinig ' and c steinern,' and find 
use for both ; as the Latin does for ' lapidosus ' and 
'lapideus,' 'saxosus' and 'saxeus.' We might do 
the same for ' stony ' and ' stonen ; ' a ' stony ' field 
is a field in which stones are many, a ' stonen ' ves- 
sel would be a vessel made of stone. As again, a 
' glassy ' sea is a sea resembling glass, a ' glassen ' 
sea is a sea made of glass. And thus too ' fleshly,' 
6 fleshy,' and i fleshen,' would have been none too 
many, any more than are ' earthly,' ' earthy,' and 
' earthen,' for all of which we are able to find their 
own proper employment. 






114 SYNONYMS OF THE 

' Fleshly ' lusts (' carnal ' is the word oftener em- 
ployed in our Translation, but in fixing the relations 
between crapiciicos and aapiavos, it will be more con- 
venient to employ ' fleshly ' and ' fleshy ') are lusts 
which move and stir in the ethical domain of the 
flesh, which have in that rebellious region of man's 
corrupt and fallen nature their source and spring. 
Such are the <raptci/cal iiriOvfJulai (1 Pet. ii. 11), and 
the man who is aapKiKos is the man allowing an un- 
due preponderance of the crdp^ ; which is in its place 
so long as it is under the dominion of the irvev[xa y 
but which becomes the source of all sin and all op- 
position to God so soon as the true positions of these 
two are reversed, and that rules which should have 
been ruled. But when St. Paul says of the Corin- 
thians (1 Cor. iii. 1) that they were aapicivoi, he finds 
fault indeed with them ; but the accusation is far 
less grave than if he had written aapKiKol instead. 
He does not intend hereby to charge them with 
positive active opposition to the Spirit of God — this 
is evident from the a>? viqirioi with which he pro- 
ceeds to explain it — but only that they were intel- 
lectually as well as spiritually tarrying at the thresh- 
old of the faith ; making no progress, and content 
to remain where they were, when they might have 
been carried far onward by the mighty transforming 
powers of that Spirit which was freely given to them 
'of God. He does not charge them in this word 



NEW TESTAMENT. 115 

with being <mfe'spiritual, but only with being un- 
spiritual, with being flesh and little more, when 
they might have been much. more. He goes on in- 
deed, at verses 3, 4, to charge them with the graver 
guilt of 'allowing the o-dpl; to work actively, as a 
ruling principle in them ; and he consequently 
changes his word. They were not a-apicivoi alone, 
for no man and no Church can long tarry at this 
point, but aapKVKoC as well, and, as such, full of 
" envying and strife and divisions " (ver. 3). 

In what manner our Translators should have 
marked the distinction between adp/civos and aap- 
icikos here it is not so easy to suggest. It is most 
likely, indeed, that the difficulty did not so much 
as present itself to them, who probably accepted 
the received text, in which there was no variation 
of words. At 2 Cor. iii. 3 all was plain before 
them ; the adpKivai ifkaices are, as they have given 
it well, the " fleshy tables of the heart ; " where 
Erasmus observes to the point that <rdpKivo$, not 
G-apKL/cos, is used, ' ut materiam intelligas, non qua- 
litatem.' St. Paul is drawing a contrast between 
the tables of stone on which the law of Moses was 
written and the tables of flesh on which Christ's 
law is written, and exalting the last over the first ; 
and so far from ' fleshy ' there being a dishonourable 
epithet, it is a most honourable, serving as it does to 
set forth the superiority of the new Law over the 



116 SYNONYMS OF THE 

old — the one graven on dead tables of stone, the 
other on the hearts of living men (cf. Ezek. xi. 19 ; 
xxxvi. 26 ; Jer. xxxi. 33). 



§ xxm. — irvorji 7rvev/j,a, ave/jLo$. 

From the association into which irvevfjua is here 
brought, it will at once be evident that it is only 
proposed to deal with it in its natural and earthly, 
not at all in its supernatural and heavenly, mean- 
ing. It may be permitted, however, to observe, by 
the way, that on the relations between irvor) and 
Trvevfjua in this its higher sense there is a discussion 
in Augustine, De Civ. Dei, xiii. 22 ; cf. De Anim. 
et Huj. Orig. i. 14. 19. The three words, as desig- 
nating not things heavenly but things earthly, differ 
from one another exactly as, according to Seneca, 
do in the Latin ' aer,' ' spiritus,' ' ventus ' (Nat. Qu. 
v. 13) : ' Spiritum a vento motus 1 separat ; vehe- 
mentior enim spiritus ventus est ; invicem spiritus 
leviter fluens aer.' 

Tlvorj conveys the impression of a lighter, gentler, 
breath of air than irvevfAa, as ' aura ' than ' ventus ' 

J So quoted in Doderlein ; but the edition of Seneca before me 
reads 'modus.' 



NEW TESTAMENT. 117 

(Pliny, Ep. v. 6 : * Semper aer spiritu aliquo mo- 
vetur; frequentius tamen auras quam ventos ha- 
bet ') ; this is evident from the following words of 
Philo {Leg. Alleg. i. 14) : irvorjv Si, aXX ov irvev[xa 
eiprj/cev, g>9 $ia(j)opa<; ovo-779 ' to fiev yap irvevfia ve- 
vorjrai Kara rrjv Icr^vv teal evroviav zeal hvvafxiv ' y 
Be 7TPorj &>9 av avpd tw io-ri, real avadv/jiiacris rjpefiaia 
real irpaeia. It may be urged as against this, that in 
one of the only two places where irvorj occurs in the 
N". T., namely Acts ii. 2, the epithet fioaia is at- 
tached to it, and it plainly is used of a strong and 
vehement wind (cf. Job xxxvii. 9). But, as De 
Wette has observed, this may be sufficiently ac- 
counted for by the fact that it was necessary to 
reserve irvevfxa for the higher gift of which this 
irvorj was the sign and symbol ; and it would have 
introduced, if not confusion, yet certainly a repeti- 
tion, for many reasons to have been avoided, to 
have employed that word here. 

IIvev/jLa is seldom used in the ~N. T., indeed only 
twice, namely at John iii. 8 ; Heb. i. 7 (in this last 
place not certainly), for wind ; but in the Septua- 
gint often, as at Gen. viii. 1 ; Ezek. xxxvii. 9 ; 
Eccles. xi. 5. The rendering of t#n in this last 
passage by i spirit,' and not, as so often, by ' wind ' 
(Job i. 19 ; Ps. cxlviii. 8), in our English Version, 
is to be regretted, obscuring as it does the remark- 
able connexion between these words of the Preacher 



118 SYNONYMS OF THE 

and our Lord's words at John iii. 8. He, who ever 
moves in the sphere and region of the O. T., in 
those words of his, " The wind bloweth where it 
listeth," takes up the words of the Preacher, " Thou 
knowest not what is the way of the wind • " who 
had thus already indicated of what higher mysteries 
these courses of the winds, not to be traced by man, 
were the symbol. Uvevfia is found often in the 
Septuagint in connexion with irvorj, but this gener- 
ally in a figurative sense : Job xxxiii. 3 ; Isai. xlii. 
5 ; lvii. 16 ; 2 Sam. xxii. 16 (ttvot) 7rvevfiaTos). 

"Avefios, etymologically identical with ' ventus ' 
and ' wind,' is the strong, oftentimes the tempes- 
tuous, wind (1 Kin. xix. 11 ; Job i. 19 ; Matt. vii. 
25 ; John vi. 18 ; Acts xxvii. 14 ; Jam. iii. 4 ; Plu- 
tarch, JPrce. Conj. 12). It is interesting and in- 
structive to observe that our Lord, or rather the 
inspired reporter of his conversation with Mcode- 
mus, which itself no doubt took place in Aramaic, 
uses not avefMos, but irvev^a, as has been noted al- 
ready, when he would seek analogies in the natural 
world for the mysterious movements, not to be 
traced by human eye, of the Holy Spirit ; and this, 
doubtless, because there is nothing tierce or violent, 
but all measured in his operation ; while on the 
other hand, when St. Paul would describe men vio- 
lently blown about and tempested in a sea of error, 
it is K\vhwvi^6[JbevoL kclI Trepifyepo/JLevoi iravrX ave/iro 



NEW TESTAMENT. 119 

tt}? SiSacTKaXlas (Ephes. iv. 14 ; cf. Jude 12 with 2 
Pet. ii. IT). 



§ xxiv. — So/ci/id^co, Treipd^G). 

These words occur not seldom together, as at 
2 Cor. xiii. 5 ; Ps. xxv. ii ; xciv. 10 (at Heb. iii. 9 
the better reading is iv So/ci/iao-la) ; but though 
both in our English Version are rendered ' prove ' 
(John vi. 6 ; Luke xiv. 19), both ' try ' (Eev. ii. 2 ; 
1 Cor. iii. 13), both < examine ' (1 Cor. xi. 28 ; 2 Cor. 
xiii. 5), they are not therefore perfectly synonymous. 
In Sofcifjid&iv, which has four other renderings in 
our Version, — namely, 'discern' (Luke xii. 56); 
'like' (Rom. i. 28); ' approve' (Rom. ii. 18) ; ' al- 
low ' (Rom. xiv. 22), — lies ever the notion of prov- 
ing a thing whether it be worthy to he received or 
not, being, as it is, nearly connected with he^eaOat. 
In classical Greek it is the technical word for put- 
ting money to the Bokc/xt] or proof, by aid of the 
BoKLfxiov or test (Plato, Timceus, 65 c\ Plutarch, 
Def. Orac. 21) ; that which endures this proof being 
hoicifjLos, that which fails oZokiijlos, which words it 
will be well to recollect are not, at least immedi- 
ately, connected with SoKL/id^ecv, but with hixeaOcu. 
Resting on the fact that this proving is through fire 



120 SYNONYMS OF THE 

(1 Cor. iii. 13), hoKifjia^eiv and irvpovv are often 
found together (Ps. xcv. 9 ; Jer. ix. 4). As em- 
ployed in the N. T., the word will in almost every 
case imply that the proof is victoriously surmounted, 
the proved is also approved (2 Cor. viii. 8 ; 1 Thess. 
ii. 4 ; 1 Tim. iii. 10), just as in English we speak of 
tried men (= hehoKifiaa-fievoC), meaning not merely 
those who have been tested, but who have stood the 
test. It is then very nearly equivalent to afyovv 
(1 Thess. ii. 4 ; cf. Plutarch, Theseus, 12). Some- 
times the word will advance even a step further, 
and signify not merely to approve the proved, but 
to select or choose the approved (Xenophon, Andb. 
iii. 3. 12 ; cf. Eom. i. 18). 

But on BoKt/Mci^etv there not merely for the most 
part follows a coming victoriously out of the trial, 
but also it is implied that the trial was itself made 
in the expectation and hope that so it would be ; at 
all events, with no contrary hope or expectation. 
The ore is not thrown into the fining pot — and this 
is the image which continually underlies the use of 
the word in the Old Testament (Zech. xiii. 9 ; Pro v. 
viii. 10 ; xvii. 3 ; xxvii. 21 ; Ps. lxv. 10 ; Jer. ix. 7 ; 
Sirac. ii. 5 ; "Wisd. iii. 6 ; cf. 1 Pet. i. 7) — except in 
the expectation and belief that, whatever of dross 
may be found mingled with it, yet it is not all 
dross, but that some good metal, and better now 
than before, will come forth from the fiery trial 



NEW TESTAMENT. 121 

(Heb. xii. 5—11 ; 2 Mace. vi. 12—16). It is ever so 
with the proofs to which He who sits as a Refiner 
in his Church submits his own; his intention in 
these being ever, not indeed to find his saints pure 
gold (for that He knows they are not), but to make 
them such ; to purge out their dross, never to show 
that they are all dross. As such, He is BoKi/naa-rrj^ 
rcov Kaphiwv (1 Thess. ii. 4 ; Jer. xi. 20 ; Ps. xvi. 4) ; 
as such, Job could say of Him, using another equiv- 
alent word, Bci/cpcve p,e coairep to yjp VG ^ 0V ' To Him 
as such his people pray, in words like those of Abe- 
lard, expounding the sixth petition of the Lord's 
Prayer, ' Da ut per tentationem probemur, non re- 
probemur.' And here is the point of divergence 
between the use of hoKifxa^eLv and irei,pd^€tv, as will 
be plain when the second of these words has been a 
little considered. 

This putting to the proof may have quite an- 
other intention, as it may have quite another issue 
and end, than those which have been just described; 
nay, it certainly will have such in the case of the 
false-hearted, and those who, seemingly belonging 
to God, had yet no root of the matter in themselves. 
Being proved or tempted, they will appear to be 
what they have always been; and this fact, though 
it does not overrule all the uses of irsipd^eiv, does 
yet predominantly affect the use of the word. It 
lies not of necessity in it that it should oftenest pos- 
6 



122 SYNONYMS OF THE 

sess an evil signification, and imply a making trial 
with the intention and hope of entangling the per- 
son so tried in sin. Heipd^eiv, connected with 
' perior,' ' experior,' 7relpco, means properly no more 
than to make an experience of {irelpav \a/jLJ3dveiv, 
Heb. xi. 29, 36), to pierce or search into (thus of 
the wicked it is said, ireipd^ovat Odvarov, Wisd. ii. 
25 ; cf. xii. 26 ; Ecclns. xxxix. 4) ; or to attempt 
(Acts xvi. 7 ; xxiv. 6). But the word came next to 
signify the trying intentionally and with the pur- 
pose of discovering what of good or evil, of power 
or weakness, was in a person or thing (Matt. xvi. 1 ; 
xix. 3 ; xxii. 18 ; 1 Kin. x. 1) ; or, where this was 
already known to the trier, discovering the same to 
the tried themselves; as when St. Paul addresses 
the Corinthians, iavrovs ireipd^ere, u try," or as we 
have it, " examine yourselves " (2 Cor. xiii. 5). It 
is thus that sinners are said to tempt God (Matt. 
iv. 7 [i/cireipd&iv] ; Acts v. 9 ; 1 Cor. x. 9 ; Wisd. i. 
2), putting Him to the proof, refusing to believe Him 
on his own word or till He has shown his power. 
At this stage, too, of the word's history and suc- 
cessive usages we must arrest it, when we affirm 
of God that He tempts (Heb. xi. IT; cf. Gen. xxii. 
1 ; Exod. xv. 25 ; Deut. xiii. 3). In no other sense 
or intention can He try or tempt men (Jam. i. 13) ; 
but because He does tempt in this sense (tyvfivaaias 
%ap\v /cat dvapprjo-em, (Ecumenius), and because of 



NEW TESTAMENT. 123 

the self-knowledge which may be won through 
these temptations, — so that men may, and often do, 
come ont of them holier, humbler, stronger than 
they were when they entered in, 1 — St. James is able 
to say, " Count it all joy when ye fall into divers 
temptations" (i. 2"; cf. ver. 12). The word itself, 
however, does not stop here. The melancholy fact 
that men so often break down under temptation 
gives to ireipaX^iv a predominant sense of putting 
to the proof with the intention and the hope that 
they may break down ; and thus the word is con- 
stantly applied to the temptations of Satan (Matt, 
iv. 1 ; 1 Cor. vii. 5 ; Rev. ii. 10), which are always 
made with such intention, he himself bearing the 
name of The Tempter (Matt. iv. 3 ; 1 Thess. iii. 5), 
and evermore approving himself as such (Gen. iii. 
1, 4, 5 ; 1 Chron. xxi. 1). 

We may say then in conclusion, that while irei- 
paQciv may be used, but exceptionally, of God, Botci- 

1 Augustine (Serm. lxxi. c. 10) : ' In eo quod dictum est, Deus 
neminem tentat, non omni sed quodam tentationis modo Deus nemi- 
nem tentare intelligendus est : ne falsum sit illud quod scriptum est, 
Tentat yos Dominus Deus vester [Deut. xiii. 3] ; et ne Christum 
negemus Deum, vel dicamus falsum Evangelium, ubi legimus quia 
interrogabat discipulum, tentans eum [Joh. vi. 5]. Est enim tenta- 
tio adducens. peccatum, qua Deus neminem tentat; et est tentatio 
probans fidem, qua et Deus tentare dignatur.' Cf. Serm. ii. c. 3 : 
' Deus tentat ut doceat ; diabolus tentat, ut decipiat.' Cf. Serm. lvii. 
c. 9. 



124 SYNONYMS OF THE 

jid^eiv could not be used of Satan, seeing that he 
never proves that he may approve, or tests that he 
may accept. 



§ xxv. — ^o(j>La } (frpovrjats, yvcocns, eTriyvoMTis. 

So(f)ia, (ftpovrjais, <yvco(ri,$ all occur together, Dan. 
i. 4, 17. They are all ascribed to God ((j>p6vr)<ri<; 
not in the N. T., for Ephes. i. 8 is not in point) ; 
ao<j>la and yvcocris, Horn. xi. 33 ; (ppovrjcris and crofyia, 
Prov. iii. 19 ; Jer. x. 12. There have been various 
efforts to draw the exact lines of distinction between 
them. These, however they may vary in detail, 
have this in common, that <io$icb is always recog- 
nized as expressing the highest and noblest, as in- 
deed it must, being, as it is commonly declared, the 
knowledge of things divine and human. Qelwv koX 
avOpcoTTLvav irpa^fjucbTcov i7narijfi7j, Clemens of Alex- 
andria defines it (Poedag. ii. 2), but adds elsewhere, 
teal T&v tovtwv alrtcov {Strom, i. 5), following herein 
the Stoic definition. 1 Augustine distinguishes be- 
tween it and yv&cris as follows {De Div. Qucest. ii. 
qu. 2), ' Hsec ita discerni solent, ut sapientia \cro$>ia\ 
pertineat ad intellectum seternorum, scientia [yvcoais;'] 

1 On the relation of <pi\o<ro(j>la, (iirirr)5 evens <ro<p(as, Philo, Be Cong. 
Erud. Grat. xiv.) to croipla see Clemens, Strom, i. 5. 



NEW TESTAMENT. 125 

vero ad ea quae sensibus corporis experimur ; ' and 
for a much fuller discussion see De Trin. xii. 22 — 
24 ; xiv. 3. "Very much the same is said in regard 
of the relation between ao$ia and <f)p6vr](TL<;. Thus 
Philo, who defines typ6vr)ais as the mean between 
cunning and folly, fjueai] Travovpyias real capias cf>p6- 
vrjens (Quod Deus. Imm. 35), gives elsewhere the 
distinction between it and cro<f>ia (De Prcem. et Poen. 
14) : Xo$La fiev yap 7Tj0o? QepameLav Seov, <f>p6vr)ais 
Be 7T/30? avOpcoiTivov /3lov hiOLKTjcnv. This was the 
familiar and recognized distinction, as witness the 
words of Cicero (De Off. ii. 43)': ' Princeps om- 
nium virtutum est ilia sapientia quam aocf>lav Grseci 
vocant. Prudentiam enim, quam Grseci §pbvr}cnv 
dicunt, aliam quandam intelligimus, quge est rerum 
expetendarum, fugiendarumque scientia ; ilia autem 
sapientia, quam principem dixi, rerum est divinarum 
atque humanarum scientia : ' cf. Tusc. iv. 26. In 
all this he is following in the steps of Aristotle, who 
thus defines (f>p6vr)cn<; (Ethic. Nie. vi. 5. 4) : e^t? 
dXrjOr)^ /juera \6yov TTpaiCTiKr) irepl tcl avOpcoira) dyaOa 
zeal Kcuca. It will be seen from these references and 
quotations, that the Christian Fathers have drawn 
their distinction between these words from the 
schools of heathen philosophy, with only such deep- 
ening of their meaning as must necessarily follow 
when the ethical terms of a lower are assumed into 
the service of a higher. 



126 SYNONYMS OF THE 

We may say boldly that crocj>ia, is never in Scrip- 
ture ascribed to other than God or good men, except 
in an ironical sense, with the express addition, or 
subaudition, of rod Koafxov tovtov (1 Cor. i. 20), rov 
alwvos tovtov (1 Cor. ii. 6), or some such words (2 
Cor. i. 12) ; nor are any of the children of this 
world called aocpoi except with this tacit or express- 
ed addition (Luke x. 21) ; they are in fact the (f)do~- 
KovTes eivai crocpoi of Rom. i. 22. For, indeed, if 
o-o<pta includes the striving after the best ends as 
well the using of the best means (cf. Aristotle, 
Ethic. Nic. vi. 7. 3), there can be no wisdom dis- 
joined from goodness, even as Plato had said long 
ago (Menex. 19) : iraaa €7n,o-Trj/jL7] yjdpiCpixkvr) hiicai- 
oq-vvt]s zeal T?}? a\\r)s apeTrjs, iravovpyla ov cro(f)ia 
$>aiv€TCLL ' cf. Ecclus. xix. 20, 22, a fine parallel. 
The true antithesis to aocpos is avor\Tos (Rom. i. 14). 
The acrvveTos need not be more than intellectually 
deficient, but in the avorjTos there is always a moral 
fault which lies at the root of the intellectual, the 
vovs, the highest knowing power in man, the organ 
by which divine things are known and apprehend- 
ed, being the ultimate seat of the error. Thus com- 
pare Luke xxiv. 25 (c5 avor)Toi real yS/jaSet? tjj icap- 
S(a); Gal. v. 1, 3 ; 1 Tim. vi. 9; Tit. iii. 3; in 
every one" of which places the word has a moral 
tinge : it is the foolishness which is akin to and is 



NEW TESTAMENT. 127 

derived from wickedness, even as <ro(f>la is the wis- 
dom which is akin to goodness. 

But (ppovrjo-t,?, being a right nse and application 
of the <j>pr)v, is a [xeaov. It may be akin to aofyia 
(Prov. x. 23),— they are interchangeably used by 
Plato, Conv. 202 a, — but it may also be akin to 
iravovpyla (Job v. 13 ; Wisd. xvii. 7). It skilfully 
adapts its means to the attainment of the desired 
ends, but whether the ends themselves are good, of 
this the word affirms nothing. On the different 
kinds of <j)p6vr]ai,s, and the very different senses in 
which it is employed, see Basil the Great, Horn, in 
JPrinc. Prov. § 6 ; cf. Aristotle, Rliet. i. 9. It is 
true that on the only two occasions when cfrpovrjacs 
occurs in the !N". T. (iv <j>povrj<ret, Slkciicdv, Luke i. 17 ; 
(Tocpta teal cj)povi]a€L, Ephes. i. 8), it is used of a laud- 
able prudence, but for all this (ppovrjai,? is not wis- 
dom, nor (frpovt/jLos wise ; so that Augustine (De 
Gen. ad Lit. xi. 2) has right when he objects to the 
' sapientissimus ' with which some Latin Yersion 
had rendered the (ppovifMorciTos applied to the ser- 
pent at Gen. iii. 1, saying, ' Abusione nominis sa- 
pientia dicitur in malo ; ' cf. Con. Gaud. i. 5. And 
the same objection, as has been often urged, holds 
good against the " wise 1 as serpents " (Matt. x. 16), 

1 The Old Italic runs perhaps Into the opposite extreme, rendering 
<pp6vifioi here by ' astuti ; ' which, however, it must be remembered, 



128 SYNONYMS OF THE 

" wiser than the children of light " (Luke xvi. 8), of 
our Yersion. 

On the distinction between acxpla and yvwo-is 
Bengel has the following note (Gnomon, in 1 Cor. 
12) : ' IUud certum, quod, ubi Deo ascribuntur, in 
solis objectis differunt; vid. Rom. xi. 33. Ubi 
fidelibus tribuuntur, sapientia \ao$ia\ magis in Ion- 
gum, latum, profundum et altum penetrat, quam 
cognitio [yvcoo-is]. Cognitio est quasi visus ; sapi- 
entia visus cum sapore ; cognitio, rerum agenda- 
rum, sapientia, rerum seternarum • quare etiam sa- 
pientia non dicitur abroganda, 1 Cor. xiii. 8.' 

On the difference between <yvwcri<$ and iiriyvco- 
ert?, it will be sufficient to say that the iirl in the 
latter must be regarded as intensive, giving to the 
compound word a greater strength than the simple 
possessed ; thus eVtyteXeo/z-at, iirivokco, liraiGQavoy^ai : 
and, by the same rule, if yvwcris is c cognitio,' ' kennt- 
niss,' i'jri'yvcocns is ' major exactiorque cognitio ' 
(Grotius), ' erkenntniss,' a deeper and more inti- 
mate knowledge and acquaintance ; not recogni- 
tion, in the Platonic sense of knowledge ; a remi- 
niscence, as distinct from cognition, if we might use 
that word ; which Jerome, on Ephes. iv. 13, and 
some moderns, have affirmed. St. Paul, it will be 
remembered, exchanges the yiyvooa/ca), which ex- 
had not in the later Latin at all so evil a subaudition as it had in the 
classical; so Augustine {Ep. 167. 6) assures us. 



NEW TESTAMENT. 129 

presses his present and fragmentary knowledge, for 
e 7r i yvcaaofjLai,, when he would express his future in- 
tuitive and complete knowledge (1 Cor. xiii. 12). It 
is difficult to see how this should have been pre- 
served in the English Yersion ; our Translators have 
made no attempt to preserve it ; Bengel does so by 
aid of ' nosco ' and ' pernoscam,' and Culverwell 
(Spiritual Optics, p. 180) has the following note : 
* 'ETrvyvaxris and yvooo-i? differ. ^Eiriyvcaai^ is r) 
fiera ttjv irpcoTyv yvwaw rod 7rpdyfjLaro<; iravrekr]^ 
Kara hvvayav Karavorjai^. It is bringing me better 
acquainted with a thing I knew before; a more 
exact viewing of an object that I saw before afar off. 
That little portion of knowledge which we had here 
shall be much improved, our eye shall be raised to 
see the same things more strongly and clearly.' All 
St. Paul's uses of eTriyvaxns justify and bear out 
this distinction (Rom. i. 28 ; iii. 20 ; x. 2 ; Eph. iv. 
13 ; Phil. i. 9 ; 1 Tim. ii. 4 ; 2 Tim. ii. 25). 



§ xxvi. — \aki(D, \eyco (XaXia, \6yos). 

In dealing with synonyms of the N. T. we ought 

plainly not to concern ourselves with such earlier, 

or even cotemporary, uses of the words which we 

are discriminating, as lie altogether outside of its 

6* 



130 SYNONYMS OF THE 

sphere, when these uses do not illustrate, and have 
not affected, the scriptural employment of the 
words. It will follow from this that all those con- 
temptuous uses of XaXeiv as to talk at random, as 
one with no door to his lips might do ; of XaXia as 
chatter (afcpaaia \6<yov akoyos, Plato, Defin. 416) — 
for I cannot believe that we are to find this at John 
iv. 42 — may be dismissed and set aside. The anti- 
thesis of the line of Eupolis, 

Xahsiv apicrros, a8vva.TWTO.Tos \4yeiv, 

does not help us, nor touch the distinction between 
the words which we seek to draw out. What that 
distinction is, may in this way be made clear. There 
are two leading aspects under w T hich speech may be 
contemplated. It may, first, be contemplated as 
the articulate utterance of human language, in con- 
trast with the absence of this, from whatever cause 
springing ; whether from choice, as in those who 
hold their peace, when they might speak ; or from 
the present undeveloped condition of the organs and 
faculties, as in the case of infants {yrjinoC) ; or from 
natural defects, as in the case of those born dumb ; 
or from the fact of speech lying beyond the sphere 
of the powers with which as creatures they have 
been endowed, as in the lower animals. This is one 
aspect of speech, namely articulated words, as dis- 
tinguished from silence, or from animal cries. But, 



NEW TESTAMENT. 131 

secondly, speech may be regarded as the orderly 
linking and knitting together in connected discourse 
of the inward thoughts and feelings of the mind, 
' verba legere et lecta ac selecta apte conglutinare ' 
(Valcknaer; cf. Donaldson, Cratylus, 453). The 
first is Xakelv = la* , the German ' lallen,' ' loqui,' 
' sprechen,' to speak ; the second \iyeiv = n^x , < di- 
cere,' ' reden,' to discourse. 

Thus the dumb man, restored to human speech, 
i\d\r)<T€ (Matt. ix. 33; Luke xi. 14; cf. xii. 22), 
the Evangelists fitly employing this word, for they 
are not concerned with relating what the man said, 
but only with the fact that he who before was dumb,' 
was now able to employ his organs of speech. So 
too, it is always \a\eiv <y\cocrcrai,s (Mark xvi. 17 ; 
Acts ii. 4 ; 1 Cor. xii. 30), for it is not what those 
in an ecstatic condition utter, but the fact of this 
new utterance itself, and quite irrespective of the 
burden of it, to which the sacred narrators would 
call our attention ; even as XcCkeiv may be ascribed 
to God Himself, (it is so more than once in the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, as at i. 1, 2,) where the 
point is rather His speaking to men than what it 
may have been that He spake. 

But if in \a\e2v the fact of uttering human words 
is the prominent notion, in Xiyew it is the words 
uttered, and that these are correlative to reasonable 
thoughts within the breast of the utterer. Thus 



132 SYNONYMS OF THE 

while the parrot or talking automaton (Rev. xiii. 
15) may be said, though even they not without a 
certain impropriety, \a\elv, seeing they produce 
sounds imitative of human speech ; yet seeing that 
there is nothing behind these sounds, they could 
never be said Xeyew ; for in the Xiyeiv lies ever the 
evvoia, or thought of the mind, as the correlative 
and complement to the words on the lips. Of <ppd- 
%eiv in like manner (it only occurs twice in the 1ST. 
T., Matt. xiii. 36 ; xv. 15), Plutarch affirms that it 
could not, but XaXeiv could, be predicated of mon- 
keys and dogs : \aXovai jap ovtoi, ov fypatpvcri, he 
(De Plac. Phil. v. 20). 

In the innumerable passages where the words 
occur together, I refer especially to such phrases as 
i\a\7]or6 \ejcov and the like (Matt. ix. 33; Luke 
xi. 14 ; cf. XaXrjdeh \6jos, Heb. ii. 2), each is true 
to its own meaning, as just asserted. 'EXaXrjcre ex- 
presses the fact of opening the mouth to speak, as 
opposed to the remaining silent (Acts xviii. 9) ; 
\ijcov proceeds to declare what the speaker actually 
said. Nor is there, I believe, any passage in the 
1ST. T. where the distinction between them has not 
been observed. Thus at Rom. xv. 18 ; 1 Cor. xi. 17 ; 
1 Thess. i. 8, there is no difficulty in giving to \a\eiv 
its proper meaning ; indeed all these passages gain 
rather than lose when this is done. At Rom. iii. 19 
there is an instructive exchange of the words. 



NEW TESTAMENT. 133 

AaXtd and A6709 in the 1ST. T. are true to the 
distinction here traced. How completely \akid, 
no less than \aXelv, has put off every slighting sense, 
is abundantly clear from the fact that on one occa- 
sion it, as well as X070?, is claimed by the Lord 
Himself (John viii. 43 ; cf. Ps. xviii. 4). This pas- 
sage in St. John deserves especial attention, as in it 
these two words occur in a certain opposition to 
one another, and in the seizing of the distinction 
intended between them must lie the right under- 
standing of what the Lord here says. What He in- 
tended by varying XaXid and X0709 has been very 
differently understood. Some, as Augustine, though 
commenting on the passage, have omitted to notice 
the variation. Others,, like Olshausen, have no- 
ticed, only to deny that it had any significance. 
Others again, admitting the significance, have fail- 
ed to draw it rightly out. It is clear that, as a fail- 
ing to understand his speech (\a\cd) is traced up to 
a refusing to hear his word (A070?), this last, as the 
root and ground of the mischief, must be the deep- 
er, the anterior thing. To hear his word, must be 
to give room to his truth in the heart. They who 
will not do this must fail to understand his \a\id, 
the outward utterance of his teaching. In other 
words, they that are of God hear God's words, his 
prjfjbara, = XaXtd here, 1 (John viii. 47; xviii. 37), 

1 Philo makes the distinction of the \6yos and the ffifia to be that 



134 SYNONYMS OF THE 

which they that are not of God do not and cannot 
hear. Melancthon : ' Qui veri sunt Dei filii et do- 
mestici non possunt patemse domlis ignorare lin- 



guam.' 



§ xxvii. — a7ro\vTpco(TL<;, /caraWayy, tkacrfio^. 

There are three grand circles of images, by aid 
of which it is sought in the Scriptures of the !N". T. 
to set forth to us the inestimable benefits of Christ's 
death and passion. Transcending, as these benefits 
do, all human thought, and failing to find anywhere 
a perfectly adequate expression in human language, 
they must still be set forth by the help of language, 
and through the means of human relations. Here, 
as in other similar cases, what the Scripture does is 
to approach the central truth from different quar- 
ters ; to seek to set it forth not on one side but on 
many, that so these may severally supply the defi- 
ciency of one another, and that moment of the truth 
which one does not express, another may. The 
words placed at the head of this article, a7r6Xvrpco- 
ais or redemption, /caraWay?] or reconciliation, 
IXacT/jLCK or propitiation, are the capital words sum- 

of the whole and the part, Leg. Alleg. iii. 61 : rb Se prj/xa ftepos 
\6yov. 



NEW TESTAMENT. 135 

ming up three such families of images ; to one or 
other of which almost every word directly bearing 
on this work of our salvation through Christ may 
be more or less remotely referred. 

To speak first of airokvr pawns, which form, and 
not XvTpcoaw, St. Paul invariably employs, Xvrpco- 
o-t? occurring only at Luke i. 68 ; ii. 38 ; Heb. ix. 
12, — Chrysostom upon Rom. iii. 24, drawing atten- 
tion to this, observes that by this dirb the Apostle 
would express the completeness of our redemption 
in Christ Jesus, which no later bondage should fol- 
low : teal ov% airkws elire, XvTpaxTecos, aXhJ aTroXvrpa}- 
<xeGt)?, a>? fj,r)/ciTL 7)jjba<; eiravekdeiv irciktv eirl rrjv avrrjv 
SovXetav. In this no doubt he has right, and there 
is the same force in the curb of aTroKaraXkaaareiv 
(Ephes. ii. 16 ; Col. i. 20, 22), which is 'prorsus 
reconciliare ; • see Fritzsche on Horn. v. 10. Both 
airoKvTpwaLs (which nowhere occurs in the Septua- 
gint, but airokvTpoto twice, Exod. xxi. 8 ; Zeph. iii. 
1), and \vTpG)(TL<z are late words in the Greek lan- 
guage. Rost and Palm {Lex.) give no earlier au- 
thority for them than Plutarch (Pom/p. 24), while 
XvTpcorrjs seems to be peculiar to the Greek Scrip- 
tures (Ps. xviii. 15; Acts vii. 35), and such writ- 
ings as are dependent upon them. 

When Theophylact defines aTroXvTpoxrL? as rj 
dirb t?)? aiyjxdXwGia's iTravatckiqcris, he omits one 
most important moment of the word, and one con- 



136 SYNONYMS OF THE 

stituting the central notion of it, as indeed of our 
word ' redemption ' no less ; for diroXvTpwori^ is not 
recall from captivity merely, as he would imply, 
but recall from captivity through a price paid ; 
cf. Origen on Horn. iii. 24. The idea of deliverance 
through a price paid, though in actual use it may 
sometimes fall away from words of this family (thus 
see Ps. cxxxiv. 24), is yet central to them. Let us 
keep this in mind, and we shall find connect them- 
selves with diroXvT payers a whole group of most sig- 
nificant words ; not only Xvrpov (Matt. xx. 28 ; 
Mark x. 45) ; dvriXvTpov (1 Tim. ii. 6) ; Xvrpovv 
(Tit. ii. 14 ; 1 Pet. i. 18) ; Xvrpcoat^ (Heb. ix. 12) ; 
but a<yopd%eiv (1 Cor. vi. 20) and i%cvyopd£et,v (1 Pet. 
i. 19 ; Luke i. 74) : here indeed is a point of contact 
with the 'Ckaa-fio^, for the Xvrpov paid in this diToXv- 
Tpwais, is identical with the irpocrfyopa or Ovcria by 
which that iXao-fios is effected. Not to say that 
there also link themselves with airoXvTpaxns all 
those passages which speak of sin as slavery, and 
of sinners as slaves (John vi. 17, 20 ; viii. 34 ; 2 
Pet. ii. 19) ; of deliverance from sin as freedom, 
cessation of bondage (John viii. 33, 36 ; Rom. viii. 
21 ; Gal. v. 1). 

KaraXXayrj, occurring four times in the IS". T. 
only occurs twice in the Septuagint. On one of 
these occasions, namely at Isai. ix. 5, it does not 
come into consideration, meaning simply exchange ; 



NEW TESTAMENT. 137 

but at 2 Mace. v. 20 it is employed in the N. T. 
sense, being opposed to the opyrj rov @eov, and 
expressing the reconciliation, the evfjueveia of God 
to his people. While SiaWayrj (EccJus. xxii. 23 ; 
xxvii. 21), and hiaXkaaaeuv (in the K. T. only at 
Matt. v. 24 ; cf. Judg. xix. 3) ape the more frequent 
words in the earlier and more classical periods of 
the language, 1 still the grammarians are wrong who 
denounce KaraXkayrj and /caraWdo-aetv as words 
avoided by those who wrote the language in its 
highest purity. None need be ashamed of words 
which found favour with iEschylus {Sept con. TJieb. 
767) ; and Plato (Phced. 69 a). Fritzsche (on Kom. 
v. 10) has a valuable note disposing of Tittman's 
fanciful distinction between KaraWdaa-eiv and 8lcl\- 

\d<T(T6LV. 

The Christian /caraWayrj has two sides. It is 
first a reconciliation, ' qua Deus nos sibi recon- 
ciliavit,' laid aside his holy anger against our sins, 
and received us into favour, a reconciliation effected 
once for all for us by Christ upon his cross ; so 
2 Cor. v. 18, 19 ; Rom. v. 10 ; in which last passage 
KardXkdaa-eadai is a pure passive, ' ab eo in gra- 
tiam recipi apud quern in odio fueris.' But KaraX- 
Xayrj is secondly and subordinately the reconcilia- 

1 Christ according to Clement of Alexandria (Coh. ad Gen. 10), 
is diaWcucr^s Kal ffcor^p 7]/xwv. 



138 SYNONYMS OF THE 

tion, ' qua nos Deo reconciliamur,' the daily deposi- 
tion, under the operation of the Holy Spirit, of the 
enmity of the old man toward Gocl. In this passive 
middle sense KaraWdaaea-Oai, is used, 2 Cor. v. 20 ; 
and cf. 1 Cor. vii. 11. All attempts to make this, 
the secondary meaning of the word, to be the pri- 
mary, rest not on an unprejudiced exegesis, but on 
a foregone determination to get rid of the reality of 
God's anger against sin. With KaraXkayrj connects 
itself all that language of Scripture which describes 
sin as a state of enmity {e^Opa) with God (Rom. 
viii. 7 ; Eph. ii. 15 ; Jam. iv. 4) ; and sinners as 
enemies to Him and alienated from Him (Bom. v. 
10 ; Col. i.*21) ; Christ on the cross as the Peace, 
and maker of peace between God and man (Ephes. 
ii. 14 ; Col. i. 20) ; all such language as this, " Be 
ye leconciled with God " (2 Cor. v. 20). 

Before leaving KaraXkayr) it may be well to ob- 
serve, that the exact relations between it and tkaa- 
lios, which will have to be considered next, are 
somewhat confused for the English reader, from the 
fact that the word ' atonement,' by which our 
Translators have rendered KaraXkayrj on one of the 
four occasions upon which it occurs in the X. T., 
namely Bom. v. 11, has gradually shifted its mean- 
ing. It has done this so effectually, that if the trans- 
lation were now for the first time to be made, and 
words to be employed in their present sense and 



NEW TESTAMENT. 139 

not in their past, it is plain that it would be a much 
fitter rendering of l\aa-/j,6<;, the notion of propitia- 
tion, which we shall find the central one of this 
word, always lying in our present use of ' atone- 
ment.' It was not so once ; when our Translation 
was made, it signified, as innumerable examples 
prove, reconciliation, or the making up of a fore- 
going enmity ; all its uses in our early literature 
justifying the etymology now sometimes called into 
question, that ' atonement ' is ' at-one-ment,' and 
therefore = reconciliation : and consequently then, 
although not now, the proper rendering of KaraX- 
\ayrj (see my Select Glossary, s.w. i atone,' ' atone- 
ment '). 

r I\acrfi6s occurs only twice in the 1ST. T., both 
times in the First Epistle of St. John (ii. 2 ; iv. 10). 
I am inclined to think that the excellent word ' pro- 
pitiation,' by which our Translators have rendered 
it, did not exist in the language when the earlier 
Reformed Yersions were made. Tyndale, the Ge- 
neva, and Cranmer have " to make agreement" 
instead of "to be the propitiation" at the first of 
these places ; " He that obtaineth grace " at the 
second. In the same way tKao-rtfpiov, which we, 
though I think wrongly, have also rendered ' pro- 
pitiation ' (Bom. iii. 25), is rendered in translations 
which share in what I conceive our error " the ob- 
tainer of mercy " (Cranmer), < a pacification ' (Ge- 



140 SYNONYMS OF THE 

neva) ; and first ' propitiation ' in the Rheims — the 
Latin tendencies of this translation giving it bold- 
ness to transfer this word from the Vulgate. *Tkaa- 
/^o? is of rare use also in the Septuagint, but in such 
passages as Num. v. 8 ; Ezek. xliv. 27 ; 2 Mace. iii. 
33, it is being prepared for the higher employment 
which it shall obtain in the IN". T. Connected with 
i \em, ' propitius,' iXdo-fcea-Ocu, ' placare,' ' iram aver- 
tere,' ' ex irato mitem redd ere/ it is by Hesychius 
explained, not incorrectly indeed (for see Dan. ix. 
9 ; Ps. exxix. 4), but inadequately, by the following 
synonyms, ev^eveta, av<y)((oprj<TL^, hiaXkaryrj, /caraX- 
Xayij, 7rpaoT7]<i — inadequately, because in none of 
these does there lie what is constant in IXcmt/jlos, 
namely that the evfiiveua or goodwill has been gain- 
ed by means of some offering or other, l placamen.' 
The word is more comprehensive than IXdcrrr]^, 
which Grotius proposes as equivalent to it. Christ 
does not propitiate alone, as that word would say, 
but at once propitiates, and is Himself the propitia- 
tion ; being, to speak in the language of the Epistle 
to the Hebrews, in the offering of Himself both at 
once, ap^tepevs and Qvaia or irpocrfyopa, for the two 
functions of priest and sacrifice, which were divided, 
and of necessity divided, in the typical sacrifices of 
the law, met and were united in Him, the sin-offer- 
ing by and through whom the just anger of God 
against our sins was appeased, and God was render- 



NEW TESTAMENT. 141 

ed propitious to us once more. All this the word 
tkaanos, applied to Him, declares. 

It will be seen that with iXao-fio^ connect them- 
selves a larger group of words and images than 
with either of the words preceding — all, namely, 
which set forth the benefits of Christ's death as a 
propitiation of God, even as all which speak of Him 
as a sacrifice, an offering (Ephes. v. 2 ; Heb. x. 14 ; 
1 Cor. v. 7), as the Lamb of God (John i. 29, 36 ; 
1 Pet. i. 19), as the Lamb slain (Rev. v. 6, 8), and 
a little more remotely, but still in a lineal conse- 
quence from these last, all which describe Him as 
washing us in his blood (Eev. i. 5). As compared 
with fcaraWayri (which is equivalent to the German 
Versohmmg), iXaa/Aos (which is equivalent to Yer- 
suhnung) is the deeper word, goes more to the cen- 
tral heart of things. If we had only /caraWayr} 
and the group of words and images which cluster 
round it, to set forth the benefits of the death of 
Christ, these would indeed describe that we were 
enemies, and by that death were made friends ; but 
how made friends KaraXka^rj would not describe at 
all. It would not of itself necessarily imply satis- 
faction, propitiation, the daysman, the Mediator, 
the High Priest ; all which in IXaafAos are involved. 
I conclude this discussion with Bengel's excellent 
note on Rom. iii. 24 : ' LXacr/Aos (expiatio sive pro- 
pitiatio) et airoXvrpoya^ (redemtio) est in fundo rei 



142 SYNONYMS OF THE 

ami cum beneficium, scilicet, restitutio peccatoris 
perditi. ^AirokvTpuxTis est respectu hostium, et kcl- 
raWay/] est respectu Dei. Atque hie voces iXacr- 
/40? et fcaraXkayij iterum differunt. 'Tkacrfjios (pro- 
pitiatio) tollit ofi'ensam contra Deum ; /caraWayr) 
(reconciliatio) est StTrXevpos et tollit (a) indignatio- 
nem Dei adversum nos, 2 Cor. v. 19 (b) nostramque 
abalienationem a Deo, 2 Cor. v. 10.' 



§ xxviii. — tydkfAos, vjjlvos, (pSy. 

All these words occur together at Ephes. v. 19, 
and again at Col. iii. 16 ; both times in the same 
order, and in passages which very nearly repeat 
one another; cf. Ps. lxvi. 1. When some refuse 
even to attempt to distinguish them from each 
other, urging that St. Paul had certainly no inten- 
tion of giving a classification of Christian poetry, 
this may be, and no doubt is, quite true ; but nei- 
ther, on the other hand, would he have used, where 
there is evidently no temptation to rhetorical ampli- 
fication, three words if one would have done equal- 
ly well. It may reasonably be doubted whether 
we can draw very accurately the lines of demarca- 
tion between the " psalms and hymns and spiritual 
songs " of which the Apostle makes mention, or 



NEW TESTAMENT. 143 

whether he drew them for himself with a perfect 
accuracy; the words, even at the time when he 
wrote, may have been often promiscuously, con- 
fusedly used. Still each must have had a meaning 
which belonged to it more, and. by a better right, 
than it belonged to either of the others ; and this it 
may be possible to draw out, even while it is quite 
impossible with perfect strictness to distribute un- 
der these three heads Christian poetry as it existed 
in the Apostolic age. 

The Psalms of the O. T. remarkably enough 
have no single, well recognized, universally accepted 
name by which they are designated in the Hebrew 
Scriptures. They first obtained such in the Sep- 
tuagint. WaXjJLG^ 9 properly a touching, then a 
touching of the harp or other stringed instruments 
with the finger or with the plectrum ; was next the 
instrument itself, and last of all the song sung with 
this musical accompaniment. It is in this latest 
stage of its meaning that we find the word adopted 
in the Septuagint ; and to this agree the ecclesi- 
astical definitions of it ; thus in the Lexicon ascribed 
to Cyril of Alexandria : \6yos /jlovctucos, orav evpvO- 
fjL(o$ /cara rov? apfiovi/covs \6<yov$ rb opyavov Kpovrj- 
tcli ; cf. Clement of Alexandria (Pcedag. ii. 4) : 
^aX/ios, 6yLtyLteX^9 eariv evXoyla /ecu acoeppcov. It is 
certainly far the most probable that the ^aXfioi of 
Ephes. v. 19; Col. iii. 16, are the inspired Psalms 



144 SYNONYMS OF THE 

of the Hebrew Canon. The word must refer to 
these on every other occasion when it is met in the 
]ST. T., with only one exception, namely 1 Cor. xiv. 
26 ; and even there it in all likelihood means no- 
thing else ; and I must needs believe that the Psalms 
which the Apostle would have the faithful to sing 
to one another, are the Psalms of David, and of 
the other sweet singers of Israel ; above all, seeing 
that the word seems bounded and limited to its nar- 
rowest use by the nearly synonymous words with 
which it is grouped. 

But while the psalm by the right of primogeni- 
ture, as at once the oldest and most venerable, thus 
occupies the foremost place, the Church of Christ 
does not restrict herself to such, but claims the 
freedom of bringing new things as well as old out 
of her treasure-house. She will produce " hymns 
and spiritual songs " of her own, as well as inherit 
psalms bequeathed to her by the Jewish Church; a 
new salvation demanding a new song, as Augustine 
delights so often to remind us. 

It was of the essence of a Greek v/ivo? that it 
should be addressed to, or be otherwise in praise of, 
a god, or of a hero, that is, in the strictest sense of 
that word, of a deified man ; as Callisthenes (Arrian, 
iv. 11) reminds Alexander ; who, claiming hymns 
for himself, or suffering them to be addressed to 
him, implicitly accepted not human honours but 



NEW TESTAMENT. 145 

divine (vfivou fiev e? rovs deovs iroiovviai, eiraivoi 8e 
ey avOpcoTrovs). In the gradual breaking down of 
the distinction between human and divine, with 
the snatching on the part of men of divine honours, 
the vfivo? came more and more to be applied to 
men ; although this not without observation (Athe- 
nseus, vi. 62 ; xv. 21, 22). When the word was as- 
sumed into the language of the Church, this essen- 
tial distinction clung to it still. A psalm might be 
a De prqfundis, the story of man's deliverance, or a 
commemoration of mercies which he had received ; 
and of a " spiritual song " much the same could be 
said : a hymn must always be more or less of a 
Magnificat, a direct address of praise and glory to 
God. Thus Jerome (In Ephes. v. 19) : ' Breviter 
hymnos esse dicendum, qui fortitudinem et majes- 
tatem prsedicant Dei, et ejusdem semper vel bene- 
ficia, vel facta, mirantur.' Cf. Origen, Con, Cels. 
viii. 67 ; and a precious fragment, probably of the 
Presbyter Caius, preserved by Eusebius (JET. E. 
v. 28) : ^raXiiol he oaoi kcli a>Bal aBe\(f)(bv air ap^r}? 
virb TTMJTwv <ypa<f>elcrai, rbv Aoyov rov Oeov rbv Xpicr- 
ibv vfivovaL OeoXoyovvres. Augustine in more places 
than one states the notes of what in his mind are 
the essentials of a hymn — which are three. It must 
be sung. It must be praise. It must be to God. 
Thus Enarr. in Ps. lxxii. 1 : ' Hymni laudes sunt 
Dei cum cantico : hymni cantus sunt continentes 



146 SYNONYMS OF THE 

laudes Dei. Si sit laus, et non sit Dei, non est 
hymmis : si sit laus, et Dei laus, et non cantetur, 
non est hymnus. Oportet ergo ut, si sit hymnus, 
habeat hsec tria, et laudem, et Dei, et canticum.' 
Cf. Enarr. in Ps. cxlviii. 14 : ' Hymnus scitis quid 
est? Cantus est cum laude Dei. Si laudas Deum, 
et non cantas, non dicis liymnum ; si cantas, et non 
laudas Deum, non dicis hymnum ; si laudas aliud 
quod non pertinet ad laudem Dei, etsi cantando 
laudes, non dicis hymnum. Hymnus ergo tria ista 
habet, et cantum, et laudem, et Dei.' 1 Compare 
Gregory of Nazianzum : 

iitaiv6s icrriv e5 ri rS>v i/xwv <ppd<rcu, 
alvos 5* eiraivos els ®ehv aefidfr/Aios, 
6 8' v/avos, alvos i/j.p.eA^s, us o'io/j.ai. 

But though, as appears from these quotations, 
v/jlvo? in the fourth century was a word freely 
adopted in the Church, this was by no means the 
case at a somewhat earlier day. Notwithstanding 
the authority which St. Paul's employment of it in 
these two places which have been so often referred 
to might seem to give it, it nowhere occurs in the 
writings of the Apostolic Fathers, nor in those of 

1 It is not very easy to follow Augustine in his distinction between 
a psalm and a canticle [canticum]. Indeed he acknowledges himself 
that he has not arrived at any clearness on this matter {Enarr. in Ps. 
lxvii. 1 ; cf. in Ps. iv. 1 ; cf. Hilary, Prol. in Lib. Psalm. §§19-21). 



NEW TESTAMENT. 147 

Justin Martyr, nor in the Apostolic Constitutions ; 
only once in Tertullian (ad Uxor. ii. 8). It is at 
least a plausible explanation of this that the word 
was so steeped in heathenism, so linked with pro- 
fane associations, there were so many hymns to 
Zeus, to Hermes, to Aphrodite, and the rest, that 
the early Christians shrunk from and would not 
willingly employ it. 

If we ask ourselves what probably the hymns, 
which St. Paul desired that the faithful should sing 
among themselves, were, we may, I think, confi- 
dently assume that these observed the law to which 
the heathen hymns were submitted, and were hymns 
to God. Inspired specimens of the v/jlvo^ we may 
find at Luke i. 46—55 ; 68— 79 ; Acts iv. 24 ; such 
also probably was that which Paul and Silas 
made to be heard from the depth of their Philip- 
pian dungeon (vfjivovv rbv Qeov, Acts xvi. 25). How 
noble, how magnificent uninspired hymns could 
prove we have evidence in the Te Z>eum, in the 
Veni Creator Spiritus, and in many a later heritage 
for ever which the Church has acquired. That the 
Church, at the time when St. Paul wrote, brought 
into a new and marvellous world of realities, would 
be rich in these we might be sure, even if no evi- 
dence existed to this effect, of which however there 
is abundance, more than one fragment of a hymn 
being probably embedded in St. Paul's own Epistles 



148 SYNONYMS OF THE 

(Eplies. y. 14 ; 1 Tim. iii. 16). And as it was quite 
impossible that the Christian Church, mightily re- 
leasing itself, though not with any revolutionary 
violence, from the Jewish synagogue, should fall 
into that mistake into which some portions of the 
Reformed Church afterward ran, we may be sure 
that it adopted into liturgic use not psalms only, 
but also hymns, singing hymns to Christ as to God 
(Pliny, Ejp. x. 96) ; though this, as we may well 
conclude, to a larger extent in Churches gathered 
out of the heathen world than in those where a 
strong Jewish element was found. 

'Slhrj (= aoihr)) is the only word of this group 
which the Apocalypse knows (v. 9 ; xiv. 3 ; xv. 3). 
St. Paul, on the two occasions when he employs it, 
adds 7rvevfiaTLK)] to it ; and this, no doubt, because 
(p$r) by itself might mean any kind of song, of bat- 
tle, of harvest, or festal, or hymeneal, while yjraX/Aos 
from its Hebrew, and vjivos from its Greek, use, 
did not require any such qualifying adjective. It 
will at once be evident that this epithet thus ap- 
plied does not necessarily imply that these tpSal 
were divinely inspired, any more than the avrjp 
Trveufiarifcos was an inspired man (1 Cor. iii. 1 ; Gal. 
vi. 1) ; but only that they were such as were com- 
posed by spiritual men, and had to do with spirit- 
ual things. How, it may be asked, are we to dis- 
tinguish these " spiritual songs " from the "psalms " 



NEW TESTAMENT. 149 

and " hymns " with which they are associated by 
St. Paul ? If the first word represents the heritage 
of sacred song which the Christian Church derived 
from the Jewish, the second and third will between 
them express what more of this sacred song it pro- 
duced out of its bosom ; but with a difference. 
What the vfivoi were, we have already seen ; but 
Christian feeling will soon have expanded into a 
wider range of poetic utterances than those in which 
there is a direct address to the Deity. If we turn 
for instance to Keble's Christian Year, or Herbert's 
Temple, there are many poems in both which, as 
they certainly are not psalms, so as little do they 
possess the characteristics of hymns ; but which 
would most justly be entitled " spiritual songs ; " 
and in almost all our collections of so-called 
u hymns " at the present day, there are not a few 
which by much juster title would bear this name. 
Calvin : ' Sub his tribus nominibus complexus est 
[Paulus] omne genus canticorum ; quae ita vulgo 
distinguuntur, ut Psalmus sit in quo concinendo 
adhibetur musicum aliquod instrumentum prseter 
linguam ; hymnus proprie sit laudis canticum, sive 
assa voce, sive aliter canatur ; oda non laudes tan- 
turn contineat, sed parseneses, et alia argumenta.' 



150 SYNONYMS OF THE 



§ xxix. — aypdjJLfjLaTos, IBubTrjs. 

These words occur together Acts iv. 13 ; dypdfi- 
fjLaros nowhere else in the E". T., but IBicdttjs on four 
other occasions (1 Cor. xiv. 16, 23, 24 ; 2 Cor. xi. 6). 
In that first-named passage there can be little donbt 
that according to the natural rhetoric of human 
speech the second word is stronger than the first, 
adds something to it; thus our Translators have 
evidently under stood them, rendering dypdii/jLaros 
'unlearned,' and IBmott]? 'ignorant;' and so Ben- 
gel : ' aypdfjL/jLciTos est rudis, IBicott)^ rudior.' 

When we seek more accurately to distinguish 
them, and to detect the exact notion which each 
conveys, the second, as the word of more various 
and subtle uses, will mainly claim our attention. 
'Aypdfifiaros need not occupy us long ; it is simply 
illiterate (John vii. 13; Acts xxvi. 24; 2 Tim. iii. 
15) ; the dypd/jb/xaro^ being joined by Plato with 
opeios, rugged as the mountaineer (Grit. 109 cZ), 
with a/jiovcros (Tim. 23 b) ; by Plutarch set over 
against the fiefiovcrco/ievo^ (Adv. Col. 26). 

But ISlcott]<; is a far more complex word. Its 
primary idea, the point from which, so to speak, 
etymologically it starts, is that of the private man, 
occupying himself with ra cBca, as contrasted with 



NEW TESTAMENT. 151 

the political ; the man unclothed with office, as set 
over against and distinguished from him who bears 
some office in the state. But then as it lay very 
deep in the Greek mind, being one of the strongest 
convictions there, that in public life the true educa- 
tion of the man and the citizen consisted, a con- 
temptuous use lay very near to ISlcottjs, which it 
did not fail presently to make its own. The ISlgottjs, 
unexercised in business, unaccustomed to deal with 
his fellow-men, is unpractical ; and thus the word 
is joined with aTrpdyfjicov by Plato {Rep. x. 620 c ; 
cf. Plutarch, De Virt. et Vit. 4), with anrpcucTos by 
Plutarch {Phil, esse cum Princ. 1), who sets him 
over against the 7ro\m/eo? real TrpcucTiicos. But more 
than this, he is boorish, and thus ISloottjs is linked 
with aypoi/cos (Chrysostom, In 1 Ep. Cor. Horn. 3), 
with airaihevTos (Plutarch, Arist. et Men. Comp. I). 1 
The history of the word by no means stops here, 
though we have followed it as far as is absolutely 
necessary to explain its association at Acts iv. 13 
with aypdfi/jLciTos, and the points of likeness and dif- 
ference between them. But for the sake of the 
other passages where it occurs, and to explain why 
it should be used at 1 Cor. xiv. 16, 23, 24, and ex- 
actly in what sense, it may be well to pursue this his- 

1 There is, I may observe, an excellent discussion on the successive 
meanings of tStcoTTjs in Bishop Horsley's Tracts in Controversy with 
Dr. Priestly, Appendix, Disquisition Second, pp. 4*75 — 485. 



152 SYNONYMS OF THE 

toiy a little further. The circumstance is explain- 
ed hy a singular characteristic of the word, which 
is not easy to describe, but which a few examples at 
once make intelligible. There lies continually in it 
a negation of that particular skill, knowledge, pro- 
fession, standing, over against which it is antitheti- 
cally set, and not of any other except that alone. 
For example, is the ISicbrr)*; set over against the 
STjfiiovpyos (as by Plato, Theag. 124 c), he is the un- 
skilled man as set over against the skilled artificer ; 
any other dexterity he may possess, but that of the 
Srj/jLiovpyos is denied him. Is he set over against 
the larpos, he is one ignorant of the physician's art 
(Plato, fiep. iii. 389 I ; Philo, De Conf. Ling. 7) ; 
against the (jo^kttt]^, he is one unacquainted with 
the dialectic fence of the sophists (Xenophon, De 
Venat. 13 ; cf. Iliero, i. 2 ; Lucian, Pise. 31 ; Plu- 
tarch, Symp. iv. 2. 3). Those unpractised in gym- 
nastic exercises are IBicorat as contrasted with the 
aOXrjTcd (Xenophon, Hiero, iv. 6 ; Philo, De Sept. 
6) ; subjects are IBlwtcll as contrasted with their 
prince (Id. De Abrah. 33) ; the underlings in the 
harvest-field are 1$i£>tcu real vTrrjpircu as distinguish- 
ed from the fjyeiioves (Id. De Somn. ii. 4) ; and last- 
ly, the whole congregation of Israel are IBioyrao as 
contrasted with the priests (De Vit. Mos. iii. 29). 
With these uses of the word to assist us, it is im- 
possible, I think, to come to any other conclusion 



NEW TESTAMENT. 153 

than that the ISicotcu of St. Paul (1 Cor. xiv. 16, 23, 
24) are the plain believers, with no special spiritual 
gifts, as distinguished from those who were in the 
possession of these ; even as elsewhere they are the 
lay members of the Church as contrasted with those 
who minister in the Word and Sacraments ; for it 
is ever the word with which it is at once combined 
and contrasted which determines its use. 

But to return to the matter immediately before 
us. For this it will be sufficient to say that when 
the Pharisees recognized Peter and James as men 
wypannaToi teal ISicorai, in the first word they ex- 
pressed more the absence in them of book-learning, 
and, confining as they would have done this to the 
O. T., the lepa ypd/jb/iara, and to the glosses of the 
elders upon these, their lack of acquaintance with 
such lore as St. Paul had learned at the feet of 
Gamaliel ; in the second the absence in them of 
that education which men insensibly acquire by 
mingling with those who have important affairs to 
transact, and by themselves sharing in the transac- 
tion of such. Setting aside that higher training of 
the heart and the intellect which comes from direct 
contact with God and his truth, no doubt books 
and public life, literature and politics, are the two 
most effectual organs of mental and moral training 
which the world has at its command — the second, 

as needs hardly be said, immeasurably more effec- 
7* 



154 SYNONYMS OF THE 

tual than the first. He is aypd/jLfjLaros who has not 
shared in the first, ISiwttis who has no part in the 
second. 



§ xxx. — So/ceo), <\>aivo[iai. 

Ouk Translators have not always observed the 
distinction which exists between hoiceiv == ' videri,' 
and ^aiveaOai == ' apparere.' Aoicelv expresses the 
subjective mental estimate or opinion about- a mat- 
ter which men form, their $6%a concerning it, which 
may be right (Acts xv. 28 ; 1 Cor. i v. 9 ; vii. 40 ; 
cf. Plato, Tim. 51 d, Soga akrjOfc), but which may 
be wrong ; involving, as it always does, the possi- 
bility of error (2 Mace. ix. 10 ; Matt. vi. 7 ; Mark 
vi. 49 ; John xvi. 2 ; Acts xxvii. 13 ; cf. Plato, 
Gorg. 458 a, ho%a ^ev^rj^: ; Xenophon, Cyr. i. 6. 
22 ; Mem. i. 7. 4 \ la^vpbv, fir) ovra, So/celv, to have 
a false reputation for strength) ; cj>aiveadcu on the 
contrary expresses how a matter phenomenally 
shows and presents itself, with no necessary assump- 
tion of any beholder at all ; suggesting an opposi- 
tion not to the 6v, but to the voovfievov. Thus, 
when Plato {Rep. 408 a) says of certain heroes in 
the Trojan war, dyaOol 7T/30? tov iroXefiov i^dvr^aav, 
he does not mean they seemed good for the war 



NEW TESTAMENT. 155 

and were not, but they showed good, with the tacit 
consequence that what they showed, they were as 
well. So too, when Xenophon writes i^aivero lyyia 
L7nra)v {Anab. i. 6. 1), he would imply that horses 
had been actually there, and left their prints on the 
ground. He could only have used Bo/celv, supposing 
him to have wished to say, that Cyrus and his com- 
pany took for the tracks of horses what indeed might 
have been, but what also might not have been, such 
at all ; cf. Mem. iii. 10. 2. Zeune : i Bo/cetv cernitur 
in opinione, quse falsa esse potest et vana; sed 
(palveo-Oai plerumque est in re extra mentem, quam- 
vis nemo opinatur.' Thus So/cel tyalvecrdai, (Plato, 
Phcedr. 269 d; Legg. xii. 960 d). 

Even in passages where Boicelv may be exchanged 
with elvaiy it does not lose the proper meaning which 
Zeune gives to it here. There is ever a predomi- 
nant reference to the public opinion and estimate, 
rather than to the actual being ; however the for- 
mer may be the just echo of the latter (Pro v. xxvii. 
14). Thus, while there is no slightest touch of 
irony in St. Paul's use of ol Botcovvres at Gal. ii. 2, 
ol Bo/covvres elvai tl (ii. 6), and manifestly could not 
be, seeing that he is so characterizing some of the 
chiefest of his fellow Apostles, the words at the 
same time express rather the reputation in which 
they were held in the Church than that which in 
themselves they were, however this reputation was 



156 SYNONYMS OF THE 

only the true measure of their worth (= iiriarniot, 
Rom. xvi. 7) ; compare Euripides, Hec. 295, and 
Porphyry, De Abst. ii. 40, where ol hotcovvres in 
like manner is put absolutely, and set over against 
ra TrkrjOrj. In the same way ol Bo/covvres apxew t<ov 
idvcov (Mark x. 42) casts no doubt on the reality of 
the rule of these, for see Matt. xx. 25, but as little 
is it redundant. It means those who are acknow- 
ledged as rulers of the Gentiles ; cf. Josephus, Antt. 
xix. 6. 3 ; Susan. 5 ; and Winer, Gramm. § lxvii. 4. 
But as on one side the mental conception may 
have, but also may not have, a corresponding truth 
in the world of realities, so on the other the appear- 
ance may have a reality behind it, and (patvecOai is 
often synonymous with elvai and ylyvecrdac (Matt, 
ii. 7 ; xiii. 26) ; but it may also have none ; fyaivo- 
[xeva for instance are set off against ra ovra ry 
akrjOela by Plato (Bep. 596 e) ; being the reflec- 
tions of things, as seen in a mirror : or it may be 
utterly false, as is the show of goodness which the 
hypocrite makes (Matt, xxiii. 28). It must not be 
assumed that in this latter case fyaiveaQai runs into 
the meaning of 8o/ce2v, and that the distinction is 
broken down between them. It still subsists in the 
objective character of the one, and the subjective 
character of the other. Thus, at Matt, xxiii. 27, 
28, the contrast is not between what other men took 
the Pharisees to be, and what they really were, 



NEW TESTAMENT. 157 

but what they showed themselves to other men 
{(j)aiv€(706 tols av0pco7roi<z 8i/ccuoi), and what they 
were indeed. 

Aotcelv signifying ever, as we have seen, that 
subjective estimate which may be formed of a thing, 
not the objective show and seeming which it ac- 
tually possesses, it will follow that our Translation 
of Jam. i. 26 is not perfectly satisfactory : " If any 
man among you seem to be religious [So/cel Oprjo-fcos 
ehai], and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth 
his own heart, this man's religion is vain." This 
verse, as it here stands, must before now have per- 
plexed many. How, it will have been asked, can a 
man " seem to be religious," that is, present him- 
self to others as such, when his religious pretensions 
are belied and refuted by the allowance of an un- 
bridled tongue ? But render the words, " If any 
man among you think himself religious" (cf. Gal. 
vi. 3, where 8o/cel is rightly so translated ; as is the 
Yulgate here, " se putat religiosum esse "), " and 
bridleth not his tongue, &c." and all will then be 
plain. It is the man's own subjective estimate of 
his spiritual condition which 8o/cel expresses, an esti- 
mate which the following words declare to be alto- 
gether erroneous. 1 If the Yulgate in dealing here 



1 Compare Heb. iv. I, where for Sony the Vulgate has rightly 
existiinetur.' 



158 SYNONYMS OF THE 

with one of these words is right, while our Transla- 
tors are wrong, elsewhere in dealing with the other 
it is wrong, while they are right. At Matt. vi. 18 
(" that thou appear not unto men to fast "), it has 
' ne videaris,' although at ver. 16 it had rightly ' ut 
appareant ; ' but the disciples are here warned not 
against the hypocrisy of wishing to be supposed to 
fast when they did not, as these words might imply, 
but against the ostentation of wishing to he known 
to fast, when they did ; as lies plainly in the 6Vo)? 
/jlt) fyavfi? of the original. 

The force of (paiveaOai, attained here, is missed 
in another place of our Version ; although not 
through any confusion between it and hoKelv, but 
rather between it and fyaiveiv, there. We render 
iv oh (palvecrde co? (fxjoarrjpe^ iv k6<t/ulg) (Phil. ii. 15), 
" among whom ye shine as lights in the world." 
To justify " ye shine " in this place, which is com- 
mon to all the "Versions of the English Hexapla, St. 
Paul should have written fyaivere (John i. 5 ; 2 Pet. 
i. 19 ; Pev. i. 16), and not, as he has written, <$ai- 
vecrOe. It is worthy of note that, while the Vul- 
gate, having ' lucetis,' shares and anticipates our 
error, an earlier Version was free from it, as is evi- 
dent from the form in which the verse is quoted by 
Augustine (Enarr. in Ps. cxlvi. 4) : 'In quibus ap- 
paretis tanquam luminaria in caslo.' 



NEW TESTAMENT. 150 



§ xxxi. Z(OOV, 07)plOV. 

There are passages out of number where one of 
these words might be employed quite as fitly as the 
other, even as there are many in which they are 
used interchangeably, as by Plutarch, Be Cap. ex 
In. Util. 2. This is not however sufficient to prove 
that there is no distinction between them, if others 
occur, however few, where one would be fit and 
the other not ; or where, though neither would be 
unfit, one would yet possess a greater fitness than 
would the other. The distinction, latent in the 
other cases, because there is nothing to evoke it, 
emerges in these. 

The difference between fwoy and drjpiov is the 
difference not between two terms in any respect 
coordinate ; one, on the contrary — that is, the se- 
cond — is wholly subordinate to the first, is a less 
included in a greater. All creatures that live on 
earth, including man himself, Xoyi/cbv kcli ttoXltlkov 
&ov, as Plutarch (Be Am. Prol. 3) so grandly 
describes him, are £o5a (Aristotle, Hist. Anim. i. 5. 
1) ; nay, God Himself is tfaov dddvarov (Plato, 
Bef.), being indeed the only one to whom life by 
absolute right belongs ; (f>a/iev Be top Bebv elvai %(oov 
dthov apuTTov (Aristotle, Metwph. xii. Y). It is true 



160 SYNONYMS OF THE 

that there is no example of this employment of 
fwoz/ to designate man in the ET. T. ; bnt see Plato, 
Pol. 271 e; Xenophon, Oyr. i. 1. 3; "Wisd. xix.20; 
still less to designate God ; for whom, as not merely 
living, but as being absolute life, the one fountain 
of life, the avro^coov, the fitter and more reverent 
%wr) is retained (John i. 4 ; 1 John i. 2). In its 
ordinary use tfaov covers the same extent of mean- 
ing as our own word ' animal,' having generally, 
but by no means universally (Plutarch, De Garr. 
22 ; Heb. xiii. 11), aXoyov or some such epithet at- 
tached (2 Pet. ii. 12 ; Jude 10). 

Orjplov, a diminutive of 6rjp, which in its ^Eolic 
form (f>rjp gives the Latin ' fera,' and appears in its 
more usual shape in the German ' Thier ' and our 
own ' deer,' like xpvcriov, /3t/3\iov, (fropri'ov, ayyelov, 
and so many other words in the Greek language 
(see Fischer, Prol. de Tit. Lex. N. T. p. 256), has 
quite left behind its diminutive signification ; how 
completely it is felt to have done so is remarkably 
attested in the modern compound ' megatherium ; ' 
and compare Xenophon, Cyrop. i. 4. 11, drjpta /-te- 
yd\a. Neither does Orjplov exclusively mean the 
mischievous and cruel beast, for see Heb. xii. 20; 
Exod. xix. 13; at the same time it has predomi- 
nantly this meaning (Mark i. 13 ; Acts xxviii. 4, 
5) ; drjpla at Acts xi. 6 being distinguished from re- 
rpcLTroha. It is very noticeable that, numerous as 



NEW TESTAMENT. 161 

are the passages of the Septuagint where beasts for 
sacrifice are mentioned, it is never under this name; 
and the reason of this is evident, namely, that the 
brutal, bestial element is that which the word brings 
prominently forward, and not that wherein the 
lower animals are akin to man, not that therefore 
which gives them a fitness to be offered as substi- 
tutes for man. Here, too, we have an explanation 
of the frequent transfer of Orjplov and 07)picoSrj?, as in 
Latin of ' bestia ' and ' bellua,' to fierce and brutal 
men (Tit. i. 12 ; 1 Cor. xv. 32 ; Josephus, Antt. 
xvii. 5. 5 ; Arrian, In Epict. ii. 9). 

All this makes the more to be regretted the 
breaking down for the English reader of the dis- 
tinction between £twoz> and Orjpiov in the Apocalypse, 
by the rendering of fwa as ' beasts ' throughout that 
Book. As I could only say over again in other 
words what I had said before, I will make no apol- 
ogy for quoting on this matter some w r ords of my 
own (On the Authorized Version of the New Testa- 
ment, 2d edit. p. 102) : ' One must always regret, 
and the regret has been often expressed — it was so 
by Broughton almost as soon as our Version was 
published— that in the Apocalypse our Translators 
should have rendered Orjpiov and JSoi/ by the same 
word, ' beast.' Both play important parts in the 
book ; both belong to its higher symbolism ; but to 
portions the most different. The fwa or " living 



162 SYNONYMS OF THE 

creatures," which stand before the throne, in which 
dwells the fulness of all creaturely life, as it gives 
praise and glory to God (iv. 6 — 9 ; v. 6 ; vi. 1 ; and 
often) form part of the heavenly symbolism; the 
07ipia, the first beast and the second, which rise up, 
one from the bottomless pit (xi. 7), the other from 
the sea (xiii. 1), of which the one makes war upon 
the two Witnesses, the other opens his mouth in 
blasphemies, these form part of the hellish sym- 
bolism. To confound these and those under a com- 
mon designation, to call those ' beasts ' and these 
' beasts,' would be an oversight, even granting the 
name to be suitable to both ; it is a more serious 
one, when the word used, bringing out, as this must, 
the predominance of the lower animal life, is ap- 
plied to glorious creatures in the very court and 
presence of Heaven. The error is common to all 
the translations. That the Bheirns should not have 
escaped it is strange ; for the Ynlgate renders £wa 
by ' animalia ' (' animantia ' would have been still 
better), and only Orjplop by ' bestia.' If fwa had al- 
ways been rendered " living creatures," this would 
have had the additional advantage of setting these 
symbols of the Apocalypse, even for the English 
reader, in an unmistakeable connexion with Ezek. 
ji. 5, 13, 14, and often; where "living creature" is 
the rendering in our English Version of n*n, as 
faioi/ is in the Septuagint. 



NEW TESTAMENT. 163 



§ xxxn. — virep, avn. 

It lias been often claimed, and in the interests 
of an all-important truth, namely the vicarious 
character of the sacrifice of Christ, that in such pas- 
sages as Heb. ii. 9 ; Tit. ii. 14 ; 1 Tim..ii. 6 ; Gal. 
iii. 13 ; Luke xxii. 19, 20 ; 1 Pet. ii. 21 ; iii. 18 ; 
iv. 1 ; Rom. v. 8 ; John x. 15, in all of which Christ 
is said to have died virep irdvrcov, virep r)fj,cov, virep 
rcov irpofidrcov, and the like, virep shall be accepted 
as equipollent with dvrl: it being further urged 
that, as olvtl is the preposition first of equivalence 
(Homer, II. ix. 116, 117) and then of exchange 
(1 Cor. xi. 15 ; Heb. xii. 16 ; Matt. v. 38), virep 
must in the passages referred to above be regarded 
as having the same force. Each of these, it is evi- 
dent, would thus become a dictum prohans for a 
truth, in itself most vital, namely that Christ suf- 
fered, not merely on our behalf and for our good, 
but also in our room, and bearing that penalty of 
our sins which we otherwise must have borne. 
Now, though some have denied, we must yet ac- 
cept as certain that virep has sometimes this mean- 
ing. Thus in the Gorgias of Plato, 515 c, eya) virep 
crov dirofcpwovfjLcu, I will answer in your stead ; cf. 
Thucydides, i. 141 ; Euripides, Alcestis, 712 ; Poly- 



164 SYXOKYMS OF THE 

bius, iii. 67. 7 ; Philem. 13 ; and perhaps 1 Cor. xv. 
29 ; but it is not less certain, that in passages far 
more numerous virkp means no more than, on be- 
half of, for the good of ; thus Matt. v. 44 ; John 
xiii. 37 ; 1 Tim. ii. 1, and continually. It must be 
admitted, I think, to follow from this, that had we 
in the Scripture only statements to the effect that 
Christ died virep tj/jlwv, that He tasted death virep 
ttclvtos, it would be impossible to found on these 
anj irrefragable proof that the death of Christ was 
vicarious, He dying in our stead, and Himself bear- 
ing on his Cross our sins and the penalty of our 
sins ; however we might find it, as no doubt we do, 
elsewhere (Isai. liii. 4 — 6). It is only as having 
other declarations to the effect that Christ died dvrl 
iroWwv (Matt. xx. 28), gave Himself as an dvr L- 
Xvrpov (1 Tim. ii. 6), and bringing these others to 
the interpretation of those, that we feel we have a 
perfect right to claim such declarations of Christ's 
death for us as also declarations of his death in our 
stead. And in them beyond doubt the preposition 
vwep is the rather employed, that it may embrace 
both these meanings, and express how Christ died 
at once for our salces ' (here it touches more nearly 
on the meaning of irepi, Matt. xxvi. 28 ; Mark xiv. 
24 ; 1 Pet. iii. 18 ; Bed also once occurring in this 
connexion, 1 Cor. viii. 11), and in our stead ; while 
dvTi would only have expressed the latter. 



NEW TESTAMENT. 165 

Teschendorf, in his little treatise, Doctrina Pauli 
oZe vi mortis Christi satisfactoria, has some excel- 
lent remarks on this matter : ' Fnerunt, qui ex sola 
natura et usu praepositionis virep demonstrare cona- 
rentnr, Panlnm docuisse satisfactionem Christi vica- 
riam ; alii rursus negarunt, praepositionem virep a 
N. Test, auctoribus recte positam esse pro avrl, inde 
probaturi contrarium. Peccatum utrimque est. 
Sola praepositio utramque pariter adjnvat senten- 
tiarum partem ; pariter, inquam, ntramque. Nam- 
qne in promptn sunt, contra perplurinm opinionem, 
desnmta ex mnltis veternm Graecorum scriptoribus 
loca, quae prsepositioni virep significatum, loco, vice, 
alicnjus plane vindicant, atque ipsnm Pauluin eodem 
significatu earn usurpasse, et quidem in locis, quae 
ad nostram rem non pertinent, nemini potest esse 
dubinm (cf. Philem. 13 ; 2 Cor. v. 20 ; 1 Cor. xv. 
29). Si antem quseritur, cnr hac potissimum prae- 
positione incerti et flnctuantis significatiis in re tarn 
gravi usns sit Apostolus — inest in ipsa praapositione 
quo sit aptior reliquis ad describendam Christi mor- 
tem pro nobis oppetitam. Etenim in hoc versari 
rei summam, quod Christus mortuus sit in commo- 
dum hominum, nemo negat ; atque id quidem fac- 
tum est ita, ut moreretnr hominum loco. Pro con- 
juncta significatione et commodi et vicarii praaclare 
ab Apostolo adhibita est praepositio virep. Itaque 
rectissime, ut solet, contendit Winerus noster, non 



166 SYNONYMS OF THE 

licere nobis in gravibus locis, nbi de morte Christi 
agatur, prsepositionem virep simpliciter = ami su- 
mere. Est enim plane Latinorum pro, nostrum fur. 
Quotiescunque Panlus Christum pro nobis mortuum 
esse docet, ab ipsa notione vicarii non disjunctam 
esse voluit notionem commodi, neque umquam ab 
hac, quamvis perquam aperta sit, exelndi illam in 
ista formula, jure meo dico.' 



§ xxxiii. — (povevs, avOpayiroiCTovos, crcieapios. 

Our Translators have rendered all these words 
by ' murderer,' a word apt enough in the case of 
the first (Matt. xxii. 7 ; 1 Pet. iv. 15 ; Kev. xxi. 8), 
but at the same time so general that it keeps out of 
sight characteristic features which the other two 
possess. 

'AvOpcoTTOKTovos, exactly corresponding to our 
' manslayer,' or 'homicide,' occurs in the N". T. only 
in the writings of St. John (viii. 44 ; 1 Ep. iii. 15 
bis) ; it is found also in Euripides {Iphig. in Taur. 
390). On our Lord's lips the word has its special 
fitness ; no other would have suited at all so well ; 
for his reference (John viii. 44) is to the great, and 
in part only too successful, assault on the life natu- 
ral and the life spiritual of all mankind which Satan 



NEW TESTAMENT. 167 

made, when pi anting sin, and through sin death, 
in them who should be the authors of being to all 
other men, he poisoned, as he hoped, the stream of 
human life at its fountain-head. Satan was thus 
6 avOpwiroKTovo? indeed; for he would have fain 
murdered not this man or that, but the whole race 
of mankind. 

Xacapios, which only occurs once in the N. T. 
and, noticeably enough, then on the lips of a Roman 
captain (Acts xxi. 38), is one of the many Latin 
words which we meet with there. Such in not 
inconsiderable numbers had followed the Roman 
domination even into those provinces of the empire 
that still retained their own language. The ' sica- 
rius,' in the Roman use of the word, having his 
name from the ' sica,' a short sword, or. rather po- 
niard or stiletto, which he wore and was prompt to 
use, was the hired bravo or swordsman, of whom in 
the last days of the Republic, lawless men, the 
Antonies and the Clodiuses, kept troops in their 
pay and oftentimes about their person, to remove 
out of the way any who were obnoxious to them. 
The word had found its way into Palestine, and 
into the Greek, which was spoken there ; Josephus 
in two instructive passages (B. J. ii. 13. 3 ; Antt. 
xx. 8. 6) giving us full details about those to whom 
the name of aucapioi was applied. They were as- 
sassins who sprang up in the latter days of the Jew- 



168 SYNONYMS OF THE 

isli Commonwealth, when, in token of the approach- 
ing catastrophe, all ties of society were fast being 
dissolved. Concealing their short swords nnder 
their garments (it was from the likeness of this 
sword to the Roman ' sica ' that, as Josephus tells 
us, they obtained their name), and mingling with 
the multitude, especially at the chief feasts, they 
stabbed whom of their enemies they would, and 
then, taking part with the bystanders in exclama- 
tions of horror, effectually averted suspicion from 
themselves. 

It will appear from what has been said that 
(povev? may be any murderer, the genus of which 
crucapLos is a species, this latter being an assassin, 
using a particular weapon, and following his trade 
of blood in a special manner. Again, avOpwiro- 
ktovos has a special stress and emphasis of its own. 
It bears on its front that he to whom this name is 
given is a murderer of men, a homicide ; while </>o- 
vevs is capable of vaguer use, so that it would be 
possible to characterize a wicked man as cf>ovevs 7% 
evaeftelas, a destroyer of piety, though he made no 
direct attack on the lives of men, or a traitor as 
cpovev<; tyjs 7rar/o/8o? (Plutarch, Prmc. Ger. Beip. 19) ; 
and such uses of the word are not unfrequent. 



NEW TESTAMENT. 169 



§ xxxiv. — irovr)p6<s, <£au\o9. 

That which is morally evil may be contemplated 
on two sides, from two points of view; either on 
the side of its positive malignity, its will and power 
to work mischief, or else on that of its negative 
worth! essness, and, so to speak, its good-for-nothing- 
ness. Tlovrjpo^ contemplates evil from the former 
point of view, and <j>av\o<} from the latter. 

IIovTipos, connected with irovos and irovelv, has 
sometimes, though very rarely, a good sense, as 
when Hercules on account of his twelve noble toils 
is termed in Hesiod TrovrjpoTaros koX apLaros. It is 
then equal to eiriirovo^, by which Suidas explains it. 
Yery much oftener, however, irovrjpos is not one 
who himself labours, but who causes labours to 
others; and the point of difference between it and 
cf)av\os, and in a measure between it and fcatcos, is, 
that in it the positive activity of evil is more de- 
cidedly expressed than in either of those. Thus 
oxjrov Trovripov (Plutarch, Sept. Sap. Conv. 2) is an 
unwholesome dish ; acr/iara 7rov7)pd (id. Quom. 
Adol. Poet. 4), wanton songs, such as corrupt the 
minds of the young. Satan is emphatically 6 ttovt]- 
po?, as the first author of all the mischief in the 
world (Matt. vi. 13; Ephes. v, 16; cf. Luke vii. 
8 



170 SYNONYMS OF THE 

21 ; Acts xix. 12) ; evil beasts are always Orjpia 
7rov7]pd in the Septnagint (Gen. xxxvii. 33 ; Isai. 
xxxv. 9) ; Kaica Orjpla indeed once in the "N. T. (Tit. 
i. 12), bnt the meaning to be expressed is not pre- 
cisely the same ; so too the evil eye is 6<j)0a\/jbb<i 
7rovr)p6s (Mark vii. 22) ; and compare John iii. 19 ; 
vii. 7; xvii. 15. 

Bnt while it is thns with Trovrjpos, there are 
words, I should suppose, in all languages, and 
</>a0\o? is one of them, which contemplate evil un- 
der another aspect, that namely of its good-lbr- 
nothingness, the impossibility of any good ever 
coming forth from it. Thus ' nequam ' (in strict- 
ness opposed to ' frugi ') and ' nequitia ' in Latin ; 
' vaurien ' in French ; ' naughty ' and i naughtiness' 
in English; ' taugenichts,' 'schlecht,' 4 schlechtig- 
keit ' in German ; * while on the other hand ' tu- 
gend - (= ' taugend ') is virtue contemplated as use- 
fulness. This notion of worthlessness is the central 
notion of <f>av\o<; (by some recognized in 'faul,' 
' foul '), which in Greek runs successively through 
the following meanings, light, unstable, blown about 
by every wind (see Donaldson, Cratylus, § 152 ; 
c synonymum ex levitate permutatum : ' Matthsei), 
small, slight (' schlecht ' and ' schlicht ' in German 

1 Graff, in his Alt-hochdeutsche jSprachschatz, p. 1.38, ascribes in 
like manner to ' bose ' (' bose ') an original sense of weak, small, no- 
thing worth. 



NEW TESTAMENT. 171 

are only different spellings of one and the same 
word), mediocre, of no account, worthless, bad; 
but still bad predominantly in the sense of worth- 
less ; thus cpavXr) avkrjTpk (Plato, Conv. 215 c) ; 
<pav\o$ Zcoypdcfros (Plutarch, De Adid. et Am. 6). 
In agreement with this, the standing antithesis to 
$ai)\o$ is oirovhalos (Plato, Legg. vi. 757 a\ vii. 
814 e ; Philo, De Merc. Mer. 1), and after this such 
words as xprjaTos (Plutarch, De And. Poet. 4) ; 
icakos (id. De Adul. et Am. 9) ; hneucfc (Aristotle, 
Ethic. Nic. iii. 5. 3) ; ao-Telos (Plutarch, De Pep. 
/Stoic. 12) ; while those with which it is commonly 
associated are axpy&Tos (Plato, Zysias, 204 o) ; 
evrekife (id. Legg. yii. 806 a) ; yu.o%#?7/>6? (id. Gorg. 
486 I) ; aToiros (Plutarch, De And. Poet. 12 ; Conj. 
Prcec. 48) ; kowos (id. Prcec. San. 14) ; a/cparrjs (id. 
Gryll. 8) ; avorjros (id. De Comm. not. 11). 

$aOXo9, as used in the !N\ T., has reached this 
its latest meaning ; and tcl (f>av\a irpd^avre^ are 
set over against tcl ayadci 7roir)<ravTe<;, being con- 
demned to " the resurrection of damnation," being 
as they are these doers of evil things (John v. 29). 
We have the same antithesis of cjxivXa and wyaOd, 
Phalaris, Ep. 144; Plutarch, De Plac. Phil. i. 8; 
and this severer meaning is involved in the word 
in all other places of the N. T. where it occurs 
(John iii. 20 ; Tit. ii. 8 ; Jam. iii. 16 ; cf. Aristotle, 
Ethic. Nic. ii. 6. 18 ; Philo, De Alrah. 3). 



172 SYNONYMS OF THE 



§ xxxv. — eikiicpivr)?, KdOapos. 

It is hard to express, even while one may in- 
stinctively feel, the difference between elXucpivq? 
and fcadapos. They occur continually together (Pla- 
to, Phileb. 52 d\ Eusebius, Prcep. JEv. xv. 15. 4), 
and the words associated with the one will be found 
constantly in association with the other. 

ElXiKpivrjs occurs only twice in the 1ST. T. (Phil, 
i. 10 ; 2 Pet. iii. 1), once also in the Septuagint 
(Wisd. vii. 25), elXifcplveLa three times (1 Cor. v. 8 ; 
2 Cor. i. 12 ; ii. IT). Its etymology, like that of 
' sincere,' which is its best English rendering, is 
doubtful, uncertainty in this matter causing also 
uncertainty in the breathing. Some, as Stallbaum 
(Plato, Phcedo, 66 a, note), connect with iXos, tXrj 
(eXXeiv, elXelv), that which is cleansed by much roll- 
ing and shaking to and fro in the sieve ; ' volubili 
agitatione secretum atque adeo cribro purgatum.' 
Another more familiar and more beautiful etymol- 
ogy, if only one could feel sufficient confidence in 
it, is that which Losner indicates when he says, 
' dicitur de iis rebus quarum puritas ad solis splen- 
dorem exigitur,' 6 iv rfi elXrj KeKpifxevos, held up to 
the sunlight and in that proved and approved. Cer- 
tainly the uses of the word, so far as they afford an 



NEW TESTAMENT. 173 

argument, and there is an instinct and traditionary 
feeling which leads to a word's correct use, even 
when its derivation has been altogether lost sight of, 
are very much in favour of the former etymology. 
Not the clear, the transparent, but the purged, the 
winnowed, the unmingled, is the constant sense 
which the word possesses; as witness those with 
which it is continually found associated, such as 
afuyijs (Plato, Menex. 245 d; Plutarch, Qucest. 
Bom. 26) ; aymcro^ (id. De Def. Or. 34 ; cf. De Isid. 
et Os. 61) ; atepaTos (id. De An. Proc. 27) ; dtee- 
paios (Clemens Romanus, 1 Ejp. ad Cor. 2) ; and 
compare Philo, De Opif. Mun. 8 ; Plutarch, Adv. 
Col. 5 ; De Fac. in Orb. 16 ; Trdcr^ei to fjayvvfievov ' 
diroj3dWec yap to eVkLKptves : in like manner the 
Etym. M. : etkaepivr)? arjfjLaivei tov teaOapov teal 
a/Myrj iTepou. I would not in the least deny that 
there are various passages in which the notion of 
clearness is the predominant, thus for example in 
Philo (Quis Her. Div. Hcer. 61) elXucpivh irvp is 
contrasted with the Kkifiavos KairviCppevos, but they 
are quite the rarer, and may very well be secondary 
and superinduced. 

The ethical use of eikctepivrjq and eikiiepLveia first 
appears in the !N". T., being altogether strange to 
classical Greek; Theophylact defining elkiiepiveia 
well as tcadapLTr]? Siavotas teal aBoXoTrjs ovSev fyov- 
crai o-vveo-teiao-fievov teal virovkov : and Basil the 



174 SYNONYMS OF THE 

Great {in Reg. Brev. Int.) el\iicpivh elvai \oyl£o/jLcu 
to a/juyis, koX a/epa)? /ce/cadap/jbivov airb ttclvtos evav- 
tlov. It is true to this its central meaning as often 
as it is employed in the N. T. The Corinthians 
shall pnrge out the old leaven that they may keep 
the feast with the unleavened bread of sincerity 
{ei\t,Kpiveia<;) and truth (1 Cor. v. 8). St. Paul re- 
joices that in simplicity and in that sincerity which 
God gives (iv elXacpiveiq @eov), not in fleshly wis- 
dom, he has his conversation in the world (2 Cor. i. 
12) ; declares that he is not of those who tamper 
with and adulterate {Kairrjkevovre^) the word of God, 
but that as of sincerity (e'£ elXiKpiveia?) he speaks in 
Christ (2 Cor. ii. 17). 

KaOapo? in its earliest use (Homer does not 
know it in any other, Od. vi. 61 ; xvii. 48) is clean, 
and this in a non-ethical sense, as opposed to pvira- 
po?. Thus KaOapov acofza (Xenophon, (Econ. x. 7) is 
the body not smeared with paint or ointment, and 
in this sense it is often employed in the !N". T. (Matt. 
xxvii. 59 ; Heb. x. 22 ; Rev. xv. 6). But already 
in the tragic poets it had obtained an ethical mean- 
ing, which is not uncommon in the Septuagint, 
where it often designates cleanness of heart (Job 
viii. 6 ; Ps. xxiii. 4), although far oftener a clean- 
ness merely technical and ceremonial. That it fre- 
quently runs into the domain of meaning which it 
has been sought to claim for elXiicpivrjs cannot be 



NEW TESTAMENT. 175 

denied. It also is found associated with afMjrjs 
(Philo, Do Mund. Ojpif. 8), with a/cparos (Xeno- 
phon, Oyrqp. viii. 7. 20 ; Plutarch, JEmil. Paul. 
34), with a/crjpcLTos (Plato, Crat. 396 h) ; /cadapbs 
(tltos is wheat with the chaff winnowed away 
(Xenophon, (Econ. xviii. 8, 9) ; fcaOapbs o-Tparos, an 
army rid of its sick and ineffective (Herodotus, i. 
211 ; cf. iv. 135), or, as the same phrase is used in 
Xenophon, an army made up of the best materials, 
not lowered by an admixture of mercenaries or 
cowards ; the flower of the army, all av&pes ayjp&oi 
being set aside (Appian, viii. 117). And yet, not- 
withstanding all such associations and such uses of 
fcadapos, it still remains true that the purity ex- 
pressed by it is mainly contemplated under the 
aspect of cleanness, freedom from soil or stain ; thus 
Qpy)<TKela icaOapa /cal afilavros (Jam. i. 27), and the 
constant use of the phrase icadapbs <f>6vov, and the 
like. 

It may then, I think, be said in conclusion, that 
as the Christian is elXifcpwrjs, this grace in him 
will exclude all double-mindedness, the divided 
heart (Jam. i. 8 ; iv. 8), the eye not single (Matt. 
vi. 22), all hypocrisies ; while, as he is /caOapb? rfj 
fcapSla, by this are excluded the fiido-fiara (2 Pet. 
ii. 20 ; cf. Tit. i. 18), the fio\v<rfi6<; (2 Cor. vii. 1), 
the pvirapia (Jam. i. 21 ; 1 Pet. iii. 21 ; Kev. xxii. 
11) of sin. In the one will be predicated his free- 



176 SYNONYMS OF THE 

dom from the falsehoods, in the other from the de- 
filements, of the flesh and of the world. If absence 
of foreign admixture belongs to both, yet is it a 
more primary sense in eikiKpivris, not improbably 
wrapt np in the etymology of the word, a more 
secondary and superinduced in Ka6ap6<$. 



§ xxxvi. — 7to\€/jlo<;, pay?]. 

IIoXe/jLos and pax 7 ! occur often together (Homer, 
11. i. 177 ; v. 891 ; Plato, Tim. 19 e ; Job xxxviii. 
23 ; Jam. y. 3) ; and in like manner jroke/jLelv and 
[idx^Oai. There is the same difference between 
them as between our own ' war ' and ' battle ; ' o 
TroXeyLto? IIe\o7rovv7]aiafc6<;, the Peloponnesian War : 
7] iv MapaOcovt, fJidxn, the battle of Marathon. Deal- 
ing with the words in this antithesis, namely that 
7rc>ve^o? embraces the whole course of hostilities, 
ndxv n ° more than the actual encounter in arms of 
hostile forces, Pericles, dissuading the Athenians 
from giving way to the demands of the Spartans, 
admits that the Peloponnesians were a match for 
all the other Greeks together in a single battle, but 
refuses to allow that they would possess the same 
superiority in a war, at least against such as had 
their preparations of another kind (j^dxy f^ev yap 



NEAV TESTAMENT. 177 

fjuia 7rpo? anravTas "EWrjvas Bvvarol TLeXoirovvrjaioL 
Kal oi %vfifjLa%<u dvrio-^elv, irdKepuelv Be pur) irpbs 
opuoiav avriirapacTKevrjv dBvvaroi, Thucydides, i. 
141). 

But besides this, while irokepLo? and woXepelv 
remain true to their primary meaning, and are not 
transferred to any secondary, it is altogether other- 
wise with jjidxn and pbdyeaQai. Contentions which 
fall very short of the shock of arms are continually 
designated by these words. There are na^ai of 
every kind : ipcortfcal (Xenophon, Jliero, i. 35) ; 
vo/Mfcai (Tit. iii. 9 ; cf. 2 Tim. ii. 23) ; Xoyopa^lat 
(1 Tim. vi. 4) ; GKiap,ayiai : and compare John vi. 
52; 2 Tit. ii. 24; Prov. xxvi. 20, 21. 

Eustathius (on Homer, II. i. 177) expresses these 
differences well : to TroXepuoi re /^d^at, re, rj Ik ira- 
pdKXrjkov BrjXol to avTO, rj /ecu Biacfropd Tt? ean rat? 
Xe^eatv, e'eye pbd^erac puev to? teal Xoyocs, a>9 teal r) 
Xoyofia^la BrjXol. Kal avrbs Be 6 iroirjTrjs per oXiya 
(prjo-L, pa^eo-o-apevco enreecrcn (ver. 304). Kal aWa>? 
Be payr) p,ev, avrrj r) roiv dvBpcov crvvetcrfioXr) ' 6 Be 
TroXejuLOS Kal eirl 7rapard%e(ov Kal p^aylpov Kaipov 
Xeyerac. Tittmann (De Synon. in JV. T. p. 66) : 
6 Conveniunt igitur in eo quod dimicationem, con- 
tentionem, pugnam denotant, sed iroKep^o^ et 7roXe- 
puelv de pngna quae manibus fit proprie dicuntur, 
/jid^v autem et pud^eadav de qnaennque contentione, 
etiam animorum, etiamsi non ad verbera et csedes 



ITS SYNONYMS OF THE 

pervenerit. In illis igitur ipsa pugna cogitatur, 
in his sufticit cogitare de contentione, quam pugna 
plerunique sequitur.' 



§ xxxvii. — tt&Oos, 67ridvfiia, opfjur}, opegis. 

Hados occurs three times in the ~N. T., once co- 
ordinated with eindv^ia (Col. iii. 5 ; for iradrj^aTa 
and iindvfilaL in like manner joined together see 
Gal. y. 24) ; once with iinOvfiia subordinated to it 
(irados liriQv^ia^, 1 Thess. iY. 5); the only other 
occasion of its use being at Rom. i. 26, where the 
irddif) aTifiias (" Yile affections," E. Y.) are lusts 
that dishonour those who indulge in them. 

The word belongs to the terminology of the 
Greek schools of ethical philosophy. Thus Cicero 
(Tusc. Quoest. iv. 5) : ' Quse Grseci iraQt) Yocant, 
nobis perturbationes appellari magis placet quam 
morbos ; ' on this preference see iii. 10 ; and pres- 
ently after he adopts Zeno's definition, c aversa a 
recta ratione, contra naturam, animi commotio ; ' 
and elsewhere (Offic. ii. 5), 'motus animi turbatus.' 
The exact definition of Zeno, as given by Diogenes 
Laertius, is as follows (vi£ 1. 63) : e<m Be avrb to 
TraQos 7] akoyos kclI irapa cj>v(T(,v i^ru^?)? fclvrjo-i?, rj 
opfjbrj ifkeovaCpvaa, Clement of Alexandria has 



NEW TESTAMENT. 179 

this in his mind when, distinguishing between opfxr) 
and irado<>, he writes thus {Strom, ii. 13) : op fir) fzev 
ovv (popa hiavolas iiri tl rj dwo tov irdOos Be, 
7r\eovd^ovaa oppbr), r) virepTeivovaa ra Kara tov Xo- 
<yov fiirpa * rj opfir) i/ccpepofjiivrj, ical direidr)^ \6yqy. 

At the same time TrdOos in the IN". T. nowhere 
obtains that wide sense which it thus obtained in 
the Greek schools ; a sense so much wider than that 
ascribed to iinOvfjiCa, that this last was only re- 
garded as one of the several iraOr] of our nature 
(Diogenes Laertius, vii. 1. 67). So far from this, 
einQvyuia in Scripture is the larger word, including 
the whole world of active lusts and desires, all to 
which the dvpos, as the seat of desire and the natu- 
ral appetites, impels ; while the irdOos is rather the 
1 morosa delectatio,' not so much the soul's disease 
in its more active operations, as the diseased condi- 
tion out of which these spring, the ' morbus libidi- 
nis,' as Bengel has put it well, rather than the 
'libido,' the ' lustfulness' as distinguished from the 
c lust ; ' cf. Rom. vii. 5 : rd iradrjfiaTa tcov dfiap- 
tlcov. Theophylact : irdQos r) Xvacra tov acofiaro^, 
Kal cocnrep irvpero^, rj rpadfia, rj dWrj voao*;. 

'EjnOvixLa, or tov r)h£o<s ope%t,<z, as Aristotle 
{RJiet. i. 10), dXoyo? opeft? as the Stoics, 'immo- 
derata appetitio opinat magni boni, rationi non ob- 
temperans ' as Cicero {Tusc. Qucest. iii. 11) defined 
it, is rendered for the most part in our translation 



180 SYNONYMS OF THE 

i lust' (Mark iv. 19, and often), but sometimes ' con- 
cupiscence' (Rom. vii. 8; Col. iii. 5), and some- 
times i desire ' (Luke xxii. 15 ; Phil. i. 23). It 
appears now and then, though rarely, in the N. T. 
in a good sense (Luke xxii. 15 ; Phil. i. 23 ; 1 Thess. 
ii. 17; cf. Prov. x. 24; Ps. cii. 5), much oftener, 
however, in a bad ; not as ' concupiscentia ' merely, 
but as 'prava concupiscentia,' which Origen (in 
Joan. torn. 10) affirms is the only sense in which 
it was employed in. the Greek Schools ; (but see 
Aristotle, Rhet. i. 11); thus iiridvfiia Kaicri (Col. 
iii. 5) ; eiriQv^tai aapicucal (1 Pet. ii. 11) ; vecore- 
pLtcai (2 Tim. ii. 22) ; dvorjrov teal fiXafiepal (1 Tim. 
vi. 9) ; Koa/jLLtcai (Tit. ii. 12) ; t??? dirdT7j<; (Eph. 
iv. 22) ; (j>dopas (2 Pet. i. 4) ; /mckt/jlov (2 Pet. ii. 
20) ; dv0pco7T(i)v (1 Pet. ii. 2) ; -n}? aapKo^ (1 John 
ii. 16) ; and without a qualifying epithet (Rom. vii. 
7; Jude 16, 18; Gen. xlix. 6; Ps. cv. 14). It is 
then, as Yitringa defines it, 'vitiosa ilia voluntatis 
affectio, qua fertur ad appetendum quae illicite 
usurpantur ; aut quae licite usurpantur, appetit 
draicTws ; ' this same evil sense being ascribed to 
it in such definitions as that of Clement of Alex- 
andria (Strom, ii. 20), etyeais zeal 6pe%is a\o<yos tov 
fce-^ap LG-fievov avrfj. Our English word ' lust,' once 
harmless enough, has had very much the same his- 
tory. For a long discussion seeking to trace why 
it should be constantly employed in malam partem, 



NEW TESTAMENT. 181 

see Yitringa, De Concwpiscentid Vitiosa et Damna- 
bili, Obss. Sac. p. 598, sqq. The relation in which 
it stands to iraOos it has been already sought to 
trace. 

'Opfirj, occurring twice in the "N. T. (Acts xiv. 5 ; 
Jam. iii. 4), and ope^t? occurring once (Rom. i. 27), 
are often found together ; thus in Plutarch (De 
Red. Rat. And. 18, on which see "Wyttenbach's 
note) ; in Eusebius (Proejp. Evang. xiv. 765 d). Of 
opfjirj, ' appetitio,' as Cicero (Off. ii. 5) renders it, 
and again as ' appetitus animi ' (De Fin. v. 7), we 
have the Stoic definition in Plutarch (De Rep. 
Stoic. 11), 7] 6pp,rj rod av8pco7rov \6yo$ icrrl irpoa- 
tclktikos avT<x> rod iroielv. The Stoics explain it 
further as this ' motus animi,' which, if toward a 
thing is ope%i<$, if from it eKtckiais. When our 
Translators at Acts xiv. 5 render opfirj < assault/ 
they ascribe to the word more than it there con- 
tains. Manifestly there was no ' assault ' actually 
made on the house where Paul and Barnabas abode ; 
for in such a case it would have been very super- 
fluous for St. Luke to tell us that they " were ware" 
of it. It was not an assault, but a purpose and 
intention of assault : c Trieb,' ' Drang,' as Meyer 
gives it. And in the same way at Jam. iii. 4, the 
opfirj of the pilot is not the i impetus brachiorum,' 
but the ' studium et conatus voluntatis.' Compare 
for this use of opfii], Sophocles, Philoct. 237 ; Plu- 



182 SYNONYMS OF THE 

tarch, De Red. Rat. And. 1 ; Prov. iii. 25 ; and 
the many passages in which it is joined with irpo- 
aipevis (Josephus, Antt. xix. 6. 3). 

But while the opfirj is thns oftentimes the hostile 
motion and spring toward an object, with a purpose 
of propelling and repelling it still further from it- 
self, as for example the opyJ) of the spear, of the 
assaulting host, the opef t? (from opiyeaOcu) is ever 
and always the reaching out after and toward an 
object, with a purpose of drawing that after which 
it reaches to itself, and making it its own. Yery 
commonly the word is used to express the appetite 
for food (Plutarch, De Frat. Am. 2 ; Symjp. vi. 2. 
1) ; in the Definitions of Plato (414 o) philosophy 
is described as tt}? tcov ovtcov del e7r io-ttJ/jltis opeft?. 
After what vile enjoyments the heathen, as judged 
by St. Paul, are regarded as reaching out, is suf- 
ficiently manifest from the context of the one pas- 
sage in the "N. T. where the word occurs (Kom. i. 
27 ; cf. Plutarch, Qucest. Nat. 21). 



§ xxxviii. — tepo?, oo-ios, ayios, ayvos. 

*Iep6<; never in the ~N. T., and very seldom any- 
where else, expresses moral qualities. It is singu- 
lar how seldom the word occurs there, indeed only 



NEW TESTAMENT. 183 

twice (1 Cor. ix. 13 ; 2 Tim. iii. 15) ; and, except in 
the Book of Maccabees, only once in the Septuagint 
(Josh. vi. 8) ; being in none of these cases employ- 
ed of persons, who alone are moral agents, but only 
of things. To persons the word is of rarest applica- 
tion, as for instance when in Plutarch the Indian 
gymnosophists are avSpes lepoi koX avrovofioi (De 
Alex. Fort. i. 10). 'Iepbs (tg3 0e&> avaredei/jievos, 
Suidas) answers very closely to the Latin ' sacer ' 
(' quidquid destinatum est diis sacrum vocatur '), to 
our ' sacred ' ; being that to which a certain inviola- 
bility is attached, thus Upbs koX acrvXos \6yos in 
Plutarch {De Gen. Soc. 24), this inviolable character 
being derived from its relations nearer or remoter 
to God ; deio? and te/36? being often joined together, 
as by Plato, Tim. 45 a. Tittmann : i In voce [epos 
proprie nihil aliud cogitatur, quam quod res quse- 
dam aut persona Deo sacra sit, nulla ingenii mo- 
rumque ratione habita ; imprimis quod sacris inser- 
vit.' Thus the lepev? is a sacred person, as serving 
at God's altar, the word not in the least implying 
that he is a holy one as well ; he may be a Hophni, 
a Caiaphas, an Alexander Borgia. The true anti- 
thesis to f'epo? is /3i/3rj\o<}, and, though not so per- 
fectly antithetic, /Mapos (2 Mace. v. 19). 

"Oglos is oftener grouped with $ikcuo<? for pur- 
poses of discrimination, than with the words here 
associated with it ; and undoubtedly they are fre- 



184 SYNONYMS OF THE 

quently found together ; thus in Plato often (Theast. 
176 h ; Rep. x. 615 h), in Josephus {Antt. viii. 9. 1), 
and in the N. T. (Tit. i. 8) ; and so also the deriva- 
tives from these ; oalm and 8lkciiw (1 Thess. ii. 
10) ; octlott)^ and Bucaioavvri (Plato, Prot. 329 c ; 
Luke i. 75 ; Ephes. iv. 24 ; Wisd. ix. 3 ; Clemens 
PomanuSj 1 Cor. 48). The distinction too is often 
urged that the o<7to? is one careful of his duties to- 
ward God, the Si/caws toward men ; and in classical 
Greek no doubt we meet with many passages in 
which such a distinction is either openly asserted 
or implicitly involved ; as, for example, in an often 
quoted passage from Plato [Gorg. 5075): /cal fiijv 
Trepl tovs av0pco7rov^ ra TrpoarjKOvra irpdrrcov, $iko,l 
av irp&TTOi, Trepl Be deovs ocna. 1 Of Socrates, Mar- 
cus Antoninus says (vii. 66), that he was Blkcilos tc\ 

7T/30? avOpGQTTOV?, OCTLOS TCb TTpOS OeOVS '. cf. Plutarch, 

Demet. 24 ; Charito, i. 10. 4 ; and see a large col- 
lection of passages in Host and Palm's Lexicon, s. v. 
There is nothing however which warrants the trans- 
fer of this distinction to the E". T., nothing which 

1 Not altogether so in the Euthyphro. where he regards rb ZiKaiov, 
or diKatotrvvr), as the sum total of all virtue, of which bcrdrri s or piety- 
is a part. In this Dialogue, which is throughout a discussion on the 
oatov, Plato makes Euthyphro to say (12 e): rovro roivay ffioiye 
5oKe?, & ^doKpares, rb fiepos tov ditcaiov elvcu evcrefies re iced ogiov, rb 
Trepl r)]u ruv 6ewv depaTrelav ' rb Se 7repl t\]v ray avBpdnrav rb \oiirbv 
thai rod diKalov fx4pos, which Socrates admits and allows ; indeed, 
has himself forced him into it. 



NEW TESTAMENT. 185 

would restrict the application of hUaio<; to him who 
should fulfil accurately the precepts of the second 
table (thus see Luke i. 6 ; Rom. i. 17 ; 1 Joh. ii. 1) ; 
or the application of ocrios to him who should fulfil 
the demands of the first (thus see Acts ii. 27 ; Heb. 
vii. 26). Nor w T as it beforehand probable that such 
distinction should there find place. In fact the 
Scripture, which recognizes all righteousness as 
one, as growing out of a single root, and obedient 
to a single law, gives no room for such an anti- 
thesis as this. He who loves his brother, and ful- 
fils his duties towards him, loves him in God and 
for God. The second great commandment is not 
coordinated with the first greatest, but subordinated 
to, and in fact included in it (Mark xii. 30, 31). 

If lepos is 'sacer,' ocrios is 'sanctus ' (= 'sanci- 
tus '), as opposed to ' pollutus.' Some of the ancient 
grammarians derive it from a&crdac, the Homeric 
synonym for aeftecrOah rightly as regards sense, 
but wrongly as regards etymology. In classical 
Greek it is much more frequently used of things 
than of persons ; oala, with fiov\rj or Bt/crj under- 
stood, expressing the everlasting ordinances of 
right, which no law or custom of men has consti- 
tuted, for they are anterior to all law and custom, 
and rest on the divine constitution of the moral 
universe and man's relation to this. The oaios, the 
German c fromm,' is one who reverences these ever- 



186 SYNONYMS OF THE 

lasting sanctities, and owns their obligation ; the 
word being joined with evop/cos by Plato (Pol. 
293 d), with delos by Plutarch (De Def. Orat. 40), 
more than once set over against eV/op/eo? by Xeno- 
phon. Those things are dvoala, which violate these 
everlasting ordinances; for instance, a Greek would 
regard the Egyptian custom of marriage between a 
brother and sister, still more the Persian between 
a mother and son, as ' incestum ' (in-castum), pr]$a- 
fjim oa la, as Plato (Legg. viii. 858 h) has it, unions 
which no human laws could ever render other than 
abominable. Such, too, would be the omission of 
burial rites, when it was possible to pay them ; if 
Antigone, for instance, in obedience to Creon's 
edict, had suffered the body of her brother to re- 
main unburied (Sophocles, Antig. 74). What is 
the oaiovy and what are the obligations of it, has 
never been more nobly declared than in the words 
which the poet puts into her mouth : 

ovSe <r94veiv roaovrov <p6/j.7iv to <ra 

K-qpvyjxaff , Sxrr frypairra Ka<r<pa\TJ Beuv 

vS/xifia 5vpa<r0ai Qvqrhv ovff tnrepdpafieiv (453 — 155). 

This character of the oaiov as something anterior 
and superior to all human enactments, puts the 
same antithesis between ocria and voimxa as exist 
between the Latin < fas ' and ' jus.' 

When we follow oaios to its uses in sacred 



NEW TESTAMENT. 187 

Greek, we of course find that it gains in depth and 
intensity of meaning; but otherwise it is true to 
the sense which it already had in the classical lan- 
guage. We have a very striking testimony for the 
distinction which, in the minds of the Septuagint 
translators at least, existed between it and ay cos, in 
the very noticeable fact, that while oo-io? is used 
some thirty times as the rendering of wn (Deut. 
xxxiii. 8 ; 2 Sam. xxii. 26 ; Ps. iv. 4), and ay cos 
nearly a hundred times as the rendering of ot^ 
(Exod. xix. 6 ; Num. vi. 5 ; Ps. xv. 3), in no single 
instance is oglgs used for the latter, or ayios for the 
former of these words ; and the same law holds 
good, I believe, universally in the conjugates of 
these ; and, which is perhaps more remarkable still, 
of the other Greek words which are rarely and ex- 
ceptionally employed to render these two, none which 
is used for the one is ever used for the other ; thus 
fcaOapos, used for the second of these Hebrew words 
(Num. v. 17), is never employed for the first ; while, 
on the other hand, ekerifxcov (Jer. iii. 12), iroXviXeo^ 
(Exod. xxxiv. 6), evXafirj? (Mic. vii. 2), used for the 
former, are in no single instance employed for the 
latter. 

"Ayios and ayvos may very probably be different 
forms of one and the same word. At all events, 
they have in common that root *AT, reappearing as 
the Latin ' sac ' in ■ sacer,' ' sancio,' and many other 



188 SYNONYMS OF THE 

v/ords. It will thus be only natural that they 
should have much in common, even while yet they 
separate off, and occupy provinces of meaning which 
are clearly distinguishable one from the other. 

The fundamental idea of ayio? is separation, and, 
so to speak, consecration and devotion to the ser- 
vice of Deity ; it ever lying in the word, as in the 
Latin 'saeer,' that this consecration may be as 
avddrjfia or dvdOefia (note in this point of view its 
connexion with dytfs, ayos). But the thought lies 
very near, that what is set apart from the world 
and to God, should separate itself from the world's 
defilements, and should share in God's purity ; and 
in this way #7*09 speedily acquires a moral signifi- 
cance. The Jews must be an edvos ayiov, not mere- 
ly in the sense of being God's inheritance, but as 
separating themselves from the abominations of the 
nations round ; God Himself, as the absolutely se- 
parate from evil, and as repelling from Himself 
every possibility of stain or defilement, having this 
title of ay cos by highest right of all (Lev. x. 13 ; 
Rev. iii. 7). 

It is somewhat different with dyvos. 'Ayvela 
(1 Tim. iv. 12 ; v. 2), in the Definitions which go 
by Plato's name too vaguely explained (414 a) 
evXdfteia rcbv 7r/)o? tovs deovs dfjLaprrjfzdrcov ' r?5? Oeov 
re/jut]? Kara §vgiv Oepairela : too vaguely also by 
Clement of Alexandria as r&v d/jLaprrj^drayv diro'xfi, 



NEW TESTAMENT. 189 

or again as <j>povelv oaia (Strom, v. 1); is better 
denned as iiriracris aco^poavv^ by Suidas, ekevOepia 
nravros /ioXvct/jlov <rapicb<; zeal irvevpLaro^ by Phavori- 
nns. 'Ayvos (joined with o/z/oz/to?, Clemens Ro- 
manus, 1 Cor. 29) is the pure; sometimes only the 
externally or ceremonially pure, as in this line of 
Euripides, 071/0? yap el/ut, ^elpa^, aXX ov to? cjipevas 
(Orestes, 1604) ; compare Hippolytus, 316, 317, and 
the use of ayvl&v as ' expiare,' Sophocles, Ajax, 
640 ; which last word in the Septuagint never rises 
higher than to signify a ceremonial purification 
(Josh. hi. 5 ; 2 Chron. xxix. 5 ; 2 Mace. i. 33), in- 
deed in four out of the seven occasions on which it 
occurs in the !N". T. it has the same lower significa- 
tion (John xi. 55 ; Acts xxi. 24, 26 ; xxiv. 18 ; and 
compare 071/tcr/i.o?, Acts xxi. 26). e Ayv6$ however 
signifies often the pure in the highest sense. It is 
an epithet frequently applied to heathen gods and 
goddesses, to Ceres, to Proserpine, to Jove (Sopho- 
cles, JPMloct. 1273 ; Pindar, Olymj>. vii. 60 ; and 
Dissen's, note), and to God Himself (1 John iii. 3). 
For these nobler uses of 071/0? in the Septuagint, 
where the word however is excessively rare as com- 
pared to 07^0?, see Ps. xi. 7 ; Prov. xx. 9. As 
there is no such impurity as fornication, being as it 
is defilement of the body and the spirit alike (1 Cor. 
vi. 18, 19) so 07Z/0? is an epithet predominantly em- 
ployed to express freedom from all impurity of this 



190 SYNONYMS OF THE 

nature (Plutarch, Prce. Conj. 4A ; Qucest. Pom. 20 ; 
cf. Tit. ii. 5) ; while sometimes in a still more re- 
stricted sense it expresses not chastity merely, but 
virginity ; thus atctfparos yd/iav re ayvos (Plato, 
Legg. viii. 840 e), and for the same use of wyveia see 
Ignatius, ad Polyc. 5. 

If what has been said is correct, Joseph, when he 
was tempted to sin by his Egyptian mistress (Gen. 
xxxix. 7 — 12), approved himself ocrto?, in reveren- 
cing those everlasting sanctities of the marriage 
bond, which God had founded, and which he could 
not violate without sinning against God ; " How 
can I do this great wickedness and sin against 
God ? " aycos in that he separated himself from any 
unholy fellowship with his temptress, and ayvos in 
that he kept his body pure, and chaste, and unde- 
filed. 



§ xxxix. — fywvr), \6yos. 

On these words, and on their relation to an- 
other, very much has been written by the Greek 
grammarians and natural philosophers (see Lersch, 
Sprachphilosophie der Alien, part iii. pp. 35, 45, 
and passim). 

Qoavrj, from (j)dco, w? ^>ayrl^ovaa to voovfxevov 
(Plutarch, Be Plac. Phil. 19), rendered in our 



NEW TESTAMENT. 191 

Yersion < voice ' (Matt. ii. 8), < sound ' (John iii. 8), 
6 noise ' (Kev. vi. 1), is distinguished from yfr6cf>o<;, 
in that it is the cry of a liwing creature (i} Be (povrj 
tyo<f)o<$ Tt9 eanv ifi-^rv-^ov, Aristotle), being some- 
times ascribed to God (Matt. iii. 17), to men (Matt, 
iii. 3), to animals (Matt. xxvi. 34), and, though im- 
properly, to inanimate objects as well (1 Cor. xiv. 
7), as to the trumpet (Matt. xxiv. 31), the wind 
(John iii. 8), the thunder (Kev. vi. 1). But X070?, 
a word, saying, or rational utterance of the vovs, 
whether spoken (irpofyopiicos, and thus $wvr) tcov 
\6ycov, Dan. vii. 11) or unspoken (ivBcdOeros;), be- 
ing, as it is, the correlative of reason, can only be 
predicated of men (\6yov Kocvoyvel fxovov avQpwrros, 
ra Be aWa (frcovrjs, Aristotle, Probl. ii. 55), of angels, 
or of God. The cj^covrj may be a mere inarticulate 
cry, and this whether proceeding from man or from 
any other animal ; and therefore the Stoics' defini- 
tion (Diogenes Laertius, vii. § 55) is unsound : £&>ou 
\Lev ecTTi (pcovr) drjp virb 6pfjbrj<; 7T€7r\r}yfAevo<;, avdpcoTrov 
Be ecrTLv evapOpos koX airo Biavoias eKirefiiroiievr). 
They transfer here to the (frcovrj what can only be 
constantly affirmed of the X070? ; indeed, whenever 
it sought to set the two in sharp antithesis with 
another, this, that the <j)a)vy is a irvevfia aBiapdpw- 
tov, is the point particularly made. It is otherwise 
with the X0709, of which the Stoics themselves say, 
X070? del o-rj/iavTiKo^ iarc (§ 57), and of the Xeyeiv 



192 SYNONYMS OF THE 

that it is to tt)v voovfxevov TrpdyfiaTO^ awfjiavTifcrjv 
irpofykpecdai (frcovijv. Compare Plutarch (De Anim. 
Proc. 27) : (fxavy rt? iarlv aXoyo? zeal darffiavTOS, 
\6yos Be Xefi? iv (ficovy arjfiavTifcf) Biavoias. In his 
treatise De Genio Socratis, there is much on the 
relation of (pcovrj and X0709 to one another, and on 
the higher functions of the latter. Such he affirms 
the Demon of Socrates to have been (c 20) : to Be 
irpoo-TTLTTTOV, ov (f>66yyov, aXXa \6yov av ti<? elicdo~eie 
BclI/jlovo<z, avev (pcovrj? e<f>a r irTO[ievov avrco rw BwXov- 
p^evw tov voovvtos. IlXrjyrj yap rj ipcovrj irpoa-eoiKe 
tt}? ^jrv^i]^, oV cotcdv /3la rbv Xoyov elaBe^ofxevr}^, otclv 
aXkr)\oi<$ ivTvy^dvcofiev. r O Be tov KpeiTTovos vov<s 
ayei tt]V ev(f>va ^v^v, eiriOiyydvwv tg> vorjOevrt, 
7r\r)yr)<; /at) BeofjLevrjv. The whole chapter is one of 
deepest theological interest ; the more so seeing 
that the great theologians of the early Church, 
above all Origen in the Greek (in Joan. torn. ii. 
§ 26), and Augustine in the Latin, were very fond 
of transferring this antithesis of the (j^covy and the 
Xoyos to John the Baptist and his Lord, the first 
claiming for himself no more than to be " the voice 
of one crying in the wilderness " (John i. 23), the 
other emphatically declared to be the Word that 
was with God, and was God (John i. 1). In draw- 
ing out the relations between John and his Lord as 
expressed by these titles, the Yoice and the Word, 
* Yox ' and ( Yerbum,' (pcovrj and Xoyos, Augustine 



NEW TESTAMENT. 193 

traces with a singular subtlety the manifold and 
profound fitnesses which lie in them for the setting 
forth of those relations. A word, he observes, is 
something even without a voice, for a word in the 
heart is as truly a word as after it is outspoken ; 
while a voice is nothing, a mere unmeaning sound, 
an empty cry, unless it be also the vehicle of a 
word. But when they are thus united, the voice in 
a manner goes before the word, for the sound strikes 
the ear before the sense is conveyed to the mind : 
yet while it thus goes before it in this act of com- 
munication, it is not really before it, but the con- 
trary. Thus, when we speak, the word in our 
hearts must precede the voice on our lips, which 
voice is yet the vehicle by which the word in us is 
transferred to and becomes also a word in another ; 
but this being accomplished, or rather in the very 
accomplishment of this, the voice has passed away, 
exists no more ; but the word which is planted now 
in the other's heart, as well as in ours, remains. All 
this Augustine transfers to the Lord and to his fore- 
runner. John is nothing without Jesus : Jesus just 
what he was before without John ; however to men 
the knowledge of Him may have come through 
John. John the first in time, and yet He who 
Game after, most truly having oeen before, ' him. 
John, so soon as he had accomplished his mission, 
passing away, ceasing, having no continuous signi- 



194 SYNONYMS OF THE 

ficance for the Church of God ; but Jesus, of whom 
he had told, and to whom he witnessed, abiding for 
ever. {Serm. 293. § 3) : ' Johannes vox ad tempus, 
Christus verbum in principio seternum. Tolle ver- 
bum, quid est vox? Ubi nullus est intellectus, 
inanis est strepitus. Yox sine verbo aurem pulsat, 
cor non sedificat. Yerumtamen in ipso corde nos- 
tro ssdincando advertamus ordinem rerum. Si 
cogito quid dicam, jam verbum est in corde meo: 
sed loqui ad te volens, qusero quemadmodum sit 
etiam in corde tuo, quod jam est in meo. Hoc 
quserens quomodo ad te perveniat, et in corde tuo 
insideat verbum quod jam est in corde meo, assumo 
vocem, et assumta voce loquor tibi : sonus vocis 
dueit ad te intellectum verbi, et cum ad te duxit 
sonus vocis intellectum verbi, sonus quidem ipse 
pertransit, verbum autem quod ad te sonus per- 
duxit, jam est in corde tuo, nee recessit a meo.' 
Cf. Serm. 288. § 3 ; 289. § 3. 



§ xl. — A.6709, fivdos. 

Aoyos is quite as often ' sermo ' as ' verbum,' a 
connected discourse as a single wwd. Indeed, as 
is familiar to many, there was once no little dis- 
cussion whether Aoyos in its very highest applica- 



NEW TESTAMENT. 195 

tion of all (John i. 1) should not rather be rendered 
by the former word than by the latter. And, not 
to dwell on this exceptional and purely theological 
employment of X070?, it is frequently in the N. T. 
used to express that word which by supereminent 
right deserves the name, being, as it is, " the word 
of God " (Acts iv. 31), " the word of the truth " 
(2 Tim. ii. 15) ; thus at Luke i. 2 ; Jam. i. 22 ; Acts 
vi. 4. As employed in this sense, it may be brought 
into relations of likeness and unlikeness with fivdos, 
between which and X070? there was at one time but 
a very slight difference indeed, one however which 
grew ever wider, until in the end a great gulf has 
separated them each from the other. 

There are three distinctly marked stages through 
which fjuvdos has past ; although, as will often hap- 
pen, in passing into later meanings it has not alto- 
gether renounced its earlier. At the first there is 
nothing of the fabulous, still less of the false, in- 
volved in it. It stands on the same footing with 
prjfjba, £77-09, X070?, and as its connexion with fivco, 
/jLvico, fMv^co sufficiently indicates, must have sig- 
nified originally the word shut up in the mind, or 
muttered within the lips (see Creuzer, Symbolic 
vol. iv. p. 517) ; although of this there is no trace 
in any actual use ; for already in Homer it appears 
as the spoken word (II. xviii. 253), the tragic poets 
and as many as form their diction on Homer con- 



196 SYNONYMS OF THE 

tinning so to employ it (thus iEschylus, Eumen. 
582 ; Euripides, Phoen. 455), at a time when in 
Attic prose it had nearly or altogether exchanged 
this meaning for another. 

At the second stage of its progress fivdos is al- 
ready in a certain antithesis to \6709, although still 
employed in a respectful, often in a very honour- 
able sense. It is the mentally conceived as set over 
against the historically true. Not literal fact, it is 
often truer than the literal truth, involves a higher 
teaching; \6y05 yjrevSrfs, eltcovi^wv ttjv akrjOeiav 
(Suidas) ; though not aXrjdrjs, yet, as one has said, 
aXrjOeias e^cov e/Kpaatv. There is a Xoyos ev fjiv6(p 
(' Veritas quae in fabulse involucro latet,' as "Wytten- 
bach, Plutarch, vol. ii. pars 1, p. 406, gives it), 
which may have infinitely more value than much 
which is actual fact. Mvdos had already obtained 
this significance in Herodotus (ii. 45) and in Pin- 
dar (Olymp. i. 29) ; and Attic prose, as has been 
observed, hardly knows of any other (Plato, Gorg. 
523 a ; Phoedo, 61 a ; Legg. 9. 872 d ; Plutarch, 
De Ser. Num. Yin. 18 ; Sym/p. i. 1. 4). 

But in a world like ours the fable easily degene- 
rates into the falsehood ; ' story,' ' tale,' and other 
words not a few, bear witness to the fact ; and at 
its third stage fiv0os is the fable, not any more al- 
lowing itself to be such, and at the same time un- 
dertaking to be, and often being, the vehicle of 



NEW TESTAMENT. 197 

some higher truth ; it is now the lying fable with 
all its falsehood and all its pretended claims to be 
what it is not ; and this is the only sense of fivdos 
which the E". T. knows (in the Septuagint it occurs 
but once, Ecclus. xx. 19) ; thus we have there fivOot 
fteftrjXoL teal ypacoBeis (1 Tim. iv. 1) ; 'lovhatKoC (Tit. 
i. 14); <j€<jo<$>i<j\ikvoi (2 Pet. i. 16); cf. nvOoi ire- 
7r\acrfievoi, Diodorus Siculus, i. 93) ; the other two 
uses of the word (1 Tim. i. 4; 2 Tim. iv. 4) being 
equally slighting and contemptuous. 

It will thus be seen that X0705 and pvOos, which 
start on their journey together, or at all events 
separated by very slight spaces, gradually part 
company, the antagonism between them becoming 
ever stronger, till in the end they stand in open 
opposition to one another, as words no less than 
men must do, when they come to belong, one to 
the kingdom of light and truth, the other to that 
of darkness and lies. 1 

1 ' Legend,' a word of such honourable import at the beginning, 
meaning as it does, that worthy to be read, but which has ended in 
signifying ' a heap of frivolous and scandalous vanities ' (Hooker), has 
had very much the same history as fiv6os ; very similar influences 
having been at work to degrade the one and the other. 



198 SYNONYMS OF THE 



§ xli.— ripas, o-rjfxelov, hvvaiiis, evho^ov, irapdho^ov t 
6avfxd(rcov. 

All these words have this in common, that they 
are every one applied to the supernatural works 
wrought by Christ in the days of his flesh; thus 
crrjfietov, John ii. 11 ; Acts ii. 19 ; T6pa$, Acts ii. 
22; John iv. 48 ; Swa/u?, Mark vi. 22; Acts ii. 22 ; 
ev8o%ov, Luke xiii. 17 ; irapdho^ov, Luke v. 26 ; Oav- 
(jL&criov, Matt. xxi. 15 ; while the first three, which 
are by far the most usual, are in like manner em- 
ployed of the same supernatural works wrought in 
the power of Christ by his Apostles (2 Cor. xii. 12). 
It will be found, I think, on closer examination, 
that they do not so much represent different kinds 
of miracles, as miracles contemplated under differ- 
ent aspects and from different points of view. 

The words repa? and crrjfjLelov are often linked 
together in the K T. (John iv. 48 ; Acts ii. 22 ; iv. 
30 ; 2 Cor. xii. 12) ; and times out of number in 
the Septuagint (Exod. vii. 3, 9 ; Deut. iv. 34 ; Neli. 
ix. 10 ; Dan. vi. 27) ; the first = rsis , and. the 
second = nis ; often also in profane Greek, in Jo- 
sephus (Antt. xx. 8. 6) ; in Plutarch (Sep. Sap. Con. 
3) ; in Polybius (iii. 112. 8) ; in Philo (Be Vit. 
Mos. i. 16). The ancients were fond of drawing a 



NEW TESTAMENT. 199 

distinction between them which, as will presently 
appear, will not bear a moment's serious examina- 
tion. It is sufficiently expressed in these words of 
Ammonius : Tepa? a-rjfxeiov Bcacfrepei ' to fiev yap 
reoa? tv a pa (f>vo~ iv ylvercu, ro Be arj/jielov it a p a 
crvvijOeoav; and again by Theophylact (in Horn. 
xv. 19) : Bca^epec Be arj/jbeiov Kal re pas tc3 to fiev 
arjfjuelov iv rocs Kara, <puo-cv \eyea6ai, KaivoTrpeir&s 
fjuevroL yivofiivocs, olov iirl rod to ttjv irevOepav Ue- 
rpov irvperrovaav evOews ladrjvat, [Matt. viii. 15], 
to Be Tepa? iv toZ<$ fir) /caTa (f>vcriv, olov to tov i/c 
yeveTTjs Tv<p\bv laOrjvac [John ix. 7] ; compare 
Suicer, Thes. s. v. o-rjfietov. But in truth this dis- 
tinction breaks down so entirely the instant it is 
examined — as Fritzsche, in a good note on Rom. xv. 
19, has superabundantly shown — that it is difficult 
to understand how so many, by repeating, have 
accepted it for their own. An earthquake, how- 
ever rare, cannot be esteemed irapa tyvcnv, cannot 
therefore, according to the distinction traced above, 
be called a Tepas, while yet Herodotus (vi. 98) gives 
this name to the single earthquake which in his ex- 
perience had visited Delos. As little can a serpent 
snatched up in an eagle's talons and dropped in the 
midst of the Trojan army be called beyond and 
beside nature, which yet Homer (II. xii. 209) calls 
Abbs Tepas alyib^oio.^ On the other hand, beyond 

1 On the Homeric idea of the ripas there is a careful discussion 
in Nagelsbach, Homerische Theologie, p. 168, sqq. 



200 SYNONYMS OF THE 

and beside nature are the healing with a word of a 
man lame from his mother's womb, satisfying many 
thousand men with a few loaves, raising a man four 
days dead from the grave, which all in Scripture go 
by the name of cnj^ela (Acts iv. 16; John vi. 14; 
xi. 47) ; compare Plutarch, Sept. Sap. Con. 3, where 
a monstrous birth is styled both a repas and a 
crrj jnelov. It is plain then that the distinction must 
be sought elsewhere. Origen has not seized it, who 
says (in Rom. xv. 19) ' Signa [crrjfiela] appellantur 
in quibus cum sit aliquid mirabile, indicatur quoque 
aliquid futurum. Prodigia [repara] vero in quibus 
tantummodo aliquid mirabile ostenditur.' Pather 
the same miracle is upon one side a repas, on an- 
other a arjjjbelov, and the words most often refer not 
to different classes of miracles, but to different qual- 
ities in the same miracles ; in the words of Lampe 
(Comm. in Joh. vol. i. p. 513): 'Eadem enim mi- 
racula dici possunt signa, quatenus aliquid seu oc- 
cultum seu futurum docent ; et prodigia (repara), 
quatenus aliquid extraordinarium, quod stuporem 
excitat, sistunt. Hinc sequitur signorum notionem 
latins patere, quam prodigiorum. Omnia prodigia 
sunt signa, quia in ilium usum a Deo dispensata, ut 
arcanum indicent. Sed omnia signa non sunt pro- 
digia, quia ad signandum res ccelestes aliquando 
etiam res communes adhibentur.' 

Tepas, certainly not derived from rpeco, the ter- 



NEW TESTAMENT. 201 

rifying, but now put generally in connexion with 
rrjpiw, as being that which for its extraordinary 
character is wont to be observed and kept in the 
memory, is always rendered "wonder 1 ' in our Ver- 
sion. • It is the miracle regarded as a startling, im- 
posing, amazement- wakening portent or prodigy ; 
being elsewhere frequently used for strange appear- 
ances in the heavens, and perhaps more frequently 
still for monstrous births on the earth (Herodotus, 
vii. 57 ; Plato, Crat. 393 b). It is thus used very 
much with the same meaning as the Latin ' mon- 
strum ' l (' Nee dubiis ea signa dedit Tritonia mon- 
strisj Virgil), or the Homeric crrj/xa (11. ii. 308 : 
evO' i(j>dv7) fjiirya arj/jia, Bpd/ccov). Origen (in Joh. 
torn. xiii. § 60 ; in Rom. lib. x. § 12) long ago called 
attention to the fact that the name ripara is never 
in the N. T. applied to these works of wonder, ex- 
cept in connexion with some other name. They 
are often called arj^eca, often hvvajjLels, often ripara 
zeal arjixela, more than once ripara, arjpLela, koX Bv- 
vap,&<$, but never ripara alone. The observation 
was well worth the making ; for the fact which we 

1 On the same similar group of synonymous words in the Latin, 
Augustine writes as follows {Be Civ. Dei, xxi. 8) : ' Monstra sane 
dicta perhibent a monstrando, quod aliquid significando demonstrant, 
et ostenta ad ostendendo, et portenta a portendendo, id est, prseosten- 
dendo, et prodigia quod porro dicant, id est, futura prasdicant.' Com- 
pare Cicero, Be Bivin. i. 42. 
0* 



202 SYNONYMS OF THE 

are thus bidden to note is indeed eminently charac- 
teristic of the miracles of the IS". T. ; namely, that 
a title, by which more than any other these might 
seem to hold on to the prodigies and portents of the 
heathen world, and to have something akin to them, 
should thus never be permitted to appear, except in 
the company of some other, necessarily suggesting 
higher thoughts about them. 

But the miracles are also o-7]/nela. Of aTj^elov 
Basil the Great (in .Esai. vii. § 198) furnishes us 
a good definition : eW arj/xelov irpa^fxa cfravepov, 

KeKpVfjL/JbivOV TWOS tCCbl CKpCLVOVS €V kcLVTO) T7]V Si]\a>- 

<iiv eyov : and presently after f) p,kv~oi Tpa^rj to, 
irapaho^a, koX irapaararLKa tlvos fivcmfcov \6yov 
arj/jLela tcakel. Among all the names which the 
miracles bear, their ethical end and purpose comes 
out in arjixelov with the most distinctness, as in 
Tepas with the least. It is involved and declared 
in the very word that the prime object and end of 
the miracle is to lead us to something out of and 
beyond itself; that, so to speak, it is a kind of 
finger-post of God (hioa-^jieia, signs from Zeus, is 
no unfrequent word in later Greek), pointing for 
us to this (Isai. vii. 11 ; xxxviii. 1) ; valuable not 
so much for what it is as for that which it indicates 
of the grace and power of the doer, or of the con- 
nexion with a higher world in which he stands 
(Mark xvi. 20 ; Acts xiv. 3 ;] Heb. ii. 4 ; Exod. 



NEW TESTAMENT. 203 

vii. 9, 10 ; 1 Kings xiii. 3). Lampe has put this 
well : ' Designat sane (Trjfielov natura sua rem non 
tantum extraordinariam, sensusque percellentem, 
sed etiam talem, quae in rei alterius, absentis licet 
et futurge, significationem atque adumbvationem ad- 
hibetur, unde et prognostica (Matt. xvi. 3) et typi 
(Matt. xii. 39 ; Luc. xi. 29) nee non sacramenta, 
quale est illud circumcisionis (Rom. iv. 11), eodem 
nomine in N". T. exprimi solent. Aptissime ergo 
hsec vox de miraculis usurpatur, ut indicet, quod 
non tantum admirabili modo fuerint perpetrata, sed 
etiam sapientissimo consilio Dei ita directa atque 
ordinata, ut fuerint simul characteres Messige, ex 
quibus cognoscendus erat, sigilla doctrinse quam 
proferebat, et beneficiorum gratige per Messiam 
jam prgestandge, nee non typi viarum Dei, earum- 
que circumstantiarum per quas talia beneficia erant 
applicanda.' It is to be regretted that crrj/jbeiov is 
not always rendered " sign " in our "Version ; but 
in the Gospel of St. John, where it is of very fre- 
quent recurrence, " sign " too often gives place to 
the vaguer " miracle ; " and often not without loss 
to the force of the words : thus see iii. 2 ; vii. 31 ; 
x. 41 ; and above all, vi. 26. 

But the miracles are also ' powers ' (Swa/iel? 
= ' virtntes '), being as they are, outcommgs of 
that great power of God, which was inherent in 
Christ, who was Himself that " great Power of 



204 SYNONYMS OF THE 

God " which Simon blasphemously allowed him- 
self to be named (Acts viii. 8, 10) ; and was by Him 
lent to those who were his witnesses and ambassa- 
dors. It is only to be regretted that in onr Ver- 
sion this word is translated now " wonderful works " 
(Matt. vii. 22) ; now " mighty works " (Matt. xi. 
20 ; Luke x. 13) ; and still more frequently " mira- 
cles " (Acts ii. 22 ; 1 Cor. xii. 10 ; Gal. iii. 5) ; in 
this last case giving such tautologies as " miracles 
and wonders " (Acts ii. 22 ; Heb. ii. 4) ; and always 
causing something to be lost of the true energy of 
the word — pointing as it does to new forces which 
have entered and are working in this world of ours. 
With this is closely connected the term /leyaXela = 
' magnalia ' (Luke i. 49), in which in like manner 
the miracles are contemplated as outcomings of the 
greatness of God's power. 

The miracles are further styled evho%a (Luke 
xiii. 17), as being works in which the Sofa of God 
and of the Son of God shone manifestly forth (John 
ii. 11 ; xi. 40 ; Luke v. 25, 26 ; Acts iii. 13, 16). 
They are irapdho^a, as being " strange things " 
(Luke v. 26), " new things " (Num. xvi. 30), beside 
and beyond all expectation of men. The word, 
though occurring only this once in the !N". T., is of 
very frequent occurrence in ecclesiastical Greek. 
They are 6av/Jid<7ia, as provoking wonder (Matt, 
xxi. 15) ; Oav/iara they are never called in the IT. T., 



NEW TESTAMENT. 205 

though this too is a name which they often bear in 
the writings of the Greek Fathers, and the davfid- 
£« is often brought out as their consequence (Matt. 
viii. 27 ; ix. 8, 33 ; xv. 31). 



§ xlii. 

[I add in a concluding article a few passages, bearing on 
some New Testament synonyms, which I have not undertaken 
to distinguish at length]. 

a. cjiopos, reXos. — Grotius : <j>6poL tributa sunt 
quge ex agris solvebantur, atque in ipsis speciebus 
fere pendebantur, id est in tritico, ordeo, vino et 
similibus. Vectigalia vero sunt quae Grsece dicun- 
tur reXr), quae a publicanis conducebantur et exi- 
gebantur, cum tributa a susceptoribus vel ab ap- 
paritoribus prsesidum ac prsefectorum exigi sole- 
rent. 

/3. icaXos [Luke xxi. 5], cbpalos. — Basil the Great 
(Ilb?n. in JPs. xliv.) : to copalov tov kclKov hia^epeu • 
on to pbev Qopalov XiyeTai to o-vpbireTfKfqpwiievov eh 
tov eTTLTrjheiov Kaipov Trpbs ttjv oltceiav ate[xr)v ' cos 
copato? o KapTrbs Trj<? apuirekov, 6 tt\v ol/ceiav Treyjrtv 
et? TeKemaiv eavTod Bia tt}? tov erot/? a>pa$ airoXa- 



206 SYNONYMS OF THE 

/3cov, teal eTriTrjheios eh aizoKavGiv ' kcCKqv Be ean to 
ev rfj avvdeaei twv fieKwv evdp/Moarov, eizavQovaav 
avr(p tt]v %obpi eypv. 

7. 7rpe<rj3vT7)<;, yepcov. — Augustine (Enarr. in Ps. 
lxx. 18) : Senecta et senium, discernuntur a Grsecis. 
Gravitas enim post juventuteni aliud nomen habet 
apud Grsecos, et post ipsam gravitatem veniens ul- 
tima setas aliud nomen habet ; nam Trpeo-ftvTns dici- 
tur gravis, et yepwv senex. Quia autem in Latina 
lingua duorum istorum nominum distinctio deficit, 
de senectute ainbo sunt positse, senecta et senium. 
Scitis autem esse duas setates. Cf. Qucest. in Gen. 
i. 70. 

o\ 6<f>ei\ei, Set. — Bengel (Gnomon, 1 Cor. xi. 10): 
ofatkei notat obligationem, Bel necessitatem ; illud 
morale est, hoc quasi physicum; ut in vernacula, 
wir sollen und miissen. 

e. TeOe/jLeXMOfiivos, eSpalos. — Bengel (lb. Col. i. 
23) : re6efie\io)/ubivoL, affixi fundamento / eBpaloi, 
stabiles, firmi intus. Illud metaphoricum est, hoc 
magis proprium ; illud importat majorem respec- 
tum ad fundamentum quo sustentantur fideles ; sed 
e&paioL, stabiles, dicit internum robur, quod fideles 
ipsi habent; quemadmodum sedincium primo qui- 
dem fundamento recte solideque inniti, deinde vero 



NEW TESTAMENT. 207 

sua etiam mole probe cohgerere et firmitcr consistere 
debet. 

f. TJn0vpi(TTr)<;, Karak&Xos. — Fritzsche {in Rom. 
i. 30) : ^rtOvpto-Tai sunt susurrones, h. e. clandestini 
delatores, qui ut inviso homini noceant quae ei 
probro sint crimina taDqnam in aurem alieni insu- 
surrant. Contra kotclKoXol omnes ii vocantur, qui 
quae alicujus famae obsint narrant, sermonibus cele- 
brant, divulgant maloque rumore aliquem differunt, 
sive id malo animo faciant ut noceant, sive temcre 
neque nisi garriendi libicline abrepti. Qui utrum- 
que vocabulmn ita discriminant, ut ^iOvpio-Tas 
clandestinos calumniatores, KaraXakows calumnia- 
tores qui propalam criminentur explicent, arctiori- 
bus quam fas est limitibus voc. fcaraXakos circum- 
scribunt, quum id yoc. calumniatorem nocendi cu- 
pidum sua vi non declaret. 

V' axpTjcrros, axpecos. — Tittmann : Omnino in 
voce a%/077<7TO9 non inest tantum notio negativa quam 
vocant (ov xptfa-ifiov), sed adjecta ut plerumque con- 
traria tov irovrjpov, quod non tantum nihil prodest, 
sed etiam damnum affert, molestum et damnosum 
est. Apud Xenopliontem, Hiero i. 27, 7^09 
axprjcTTos non est inutilis, sed molestissimus, et in 
(Econom. viii. 4. Sed in voce axpetos per se nulla 
inest nota reprebensionis, tantum denotat rem aut 



208 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

hominem quo non opus est, quo supersedere possu- 
rnus, unnothig, unentbehrlich [Thucydides, i. 84; 
ii. 6], quae ipsa tamen raro sine vituperatione di- 
cuntur. 



INDEX OF SYNONYMS. 



PAGE 

ay a&a)(TvvT] 58 

ayios 182 

dyvorjp.a 69 

ayvos 182 

dypafifxaros 150 

ciboXos 23 

a'ir-qpa 1 

alcov 35 

cikcikos 23 

uKepaios 23 

apdprrjpa 69 

apaprla 69 

dfx(pLJ3Xr](TTpou 64 

civepos 116 

dvdpafTTOKTOVOS 166 

dvopLta 69 

d.VO)(T) 11 

duTi 163 

dnXovs 23 

dirokvTpoicns 134 

dp-^aios 81 

acmovdos 8 

davv&eros . 8 

a^peios 207 

axprjOTTOs 207 

(3a)p6s 87 



PAGE 

yepatv 206 

yveoais 124 

derjcris 1 

del 206 

dlKTVOU 64 

SoKCCD 154 

doKipa£(ti 119 

SoXdoo 52 

bvvapts 198 

idpalos 206 

fiXiKpivfjs 172 

euBoiov 198 

€vrev£is 1 

eTTiyvoicns 124 

em&vpia 178 

evxapicrria 1 

™xh 1 

faov 159 

rJTTTjpa 69 

&avp.daLOV 198 

drjpiov 159 

6\fyis 20 



210 



INDEX. 



PAGE 

Spr/veco 66 

QvaiatjTripiov 87 

Idea 97 

IdiaTTjs 150 

lepos 182 

iKeTTjpia 1 

lka(rp.6s 134 

Ktifiapos 172 

kclivos 42 

KdipOS 30 

KaXos 205 

KcmT]\ev(o 52 

KaraXdXos 207 

KaraXXayr] 134 

K07TTG) 6Q 

Kocrpos 35 

Kpanrakr) 49 

Kwpos 49 

XaXeco 129 

XaXid 129 

Xe'ya) 129 

Xoyos 129, 190, 194 

Xvireop.cn 66 

p.aKpoQvpia 11 

h-«xv i^ 6 

pe&r) 49 

p-erapeXopai 90 

p,€TdVO€(0 90 

p-opcpT] 97 

p.vQos 194 

veos 42 



PAGE 

olvoCpXvyla 49 

opegis 178 

oppr) 178 

oaios 182 

oCpeLXei 206 

ndQos 178 

7raXaios 81 

Tra.pdfia.o~is 69 

Trapdbo^ov 198 

TrapaKor) 69 

Ttapavopia 69 

Trapdnrcop-a 69 

neipd^a) 119 

TrevQeu 66 

7TV€Vp,a 116 

TTVOT) 116 

iroXep-os 176 

TTovrjpos 169 

7TOTOS 49 

np€aj3vTT]s 206 

7Tpo<T€VXr) 1 

crayrjVTj 64 

aapKLKos 106, 112 

adpKivos 112 

<T7]p.flOV 198 

criKapios 166 

(rocpia 124 

a-rraraXdoi 17 

(TT€VO-)(U)pia 20 

(TTprjvidco 17 

0W a 9 ^ 

T€6ep.eXtG)p.€vos 206 

re'Xoy 205 



INDEX. 



211 



PAGE 

T *P a s 198 cp6pos ... 

rpvcpda 17 <p p 6 VW is, 

„ Cpojvr) . . . 

v P vos 142 

vnep 163 xpr)o-T6Ti7s 



VKOpoVT) 11 

(paivoficu 154 

(paiiXos 169 

<i>epa> 34 

(povevs 166 



(popu 



Xpouos 



PAGE 

205 
124 
190 

53 
30 



yj/aXpos 142 

yjsi&vpHTTrjs 207 

^vxtKos 106 



&)Sj7 



142 



34 | copatos 205 



II. 



INDEX OF OTHER WORDS. 



PAGE 

ddiKTjixa 72 

ddiKia . . 72 

Aer 116 

alvos 146 

CLKrjpaTas 25 

aKrjpvKTOs . . 9 

Altare 89 

dvatcaivoco 47 

dvaveooo 47 

Angor 21 

Angst 21 

Animal 161 

dvorjTos 126 

Antic .. 85 

Ara 89 

Archeology 82 

Astutus 127 

dcrvveTos 126 

Atonement 139 

Aura 116 

Benignitas 61 

Bestia 161 

Bitte 3 

Bonitas 61 

Canticum 146 



PAGE 

Xprjaros 60 

Oomissatio 50 

Orapula 51 

Deprecatio 2 

diaXXayr) 137 

dLKaios 184 

doKi/xiov 119 

elkiKpiveia 173 

ifjLjxeXeia 81 

erraivos 146 

evpvxcapia 21 

Figura 104 

Figure 102 

Forma 104 

Formality 103 

Forme 102 

Fulsomeness 52 

Glassen 113 

Gebet 3 

Hadiwist 94 

ayveia 188 

ayvi^oo 189 



INDEX. 



213 



anXoi 



PAGE 

^tijs 23 

IXaaTTjpLov 139 

Hymnus .. . . 145 



Iniquitas 75 

Intercession 3 

Interpellate- 4 

Jaculum 64 

Katvokoyia 45 

Ka7rrj\os 53 

Kara(TTpr]vtdco 18 

Laatitia 22 

Legend 197 

Little-ease 22 

Longanimity 12 

Lnctus 66 

XvrpasTrjs 135 

H-aX°H< al 1T6 

/zera/ze'Aeta 90 

p.€Tap.op(povpai 100 

p-erdvota 90 

p.era(rxr)p.aTi^(o 102 

Monstrum 201 

Mundus 37 

ISTeuf 48 

Nouveau 48 

Novus 48 

o'lvuxth 49 



Opportunitas 33 Susurro 



PAGE 

82 

Patientia 13 

Pecco, peccatum 75 

Perse verantia 13 

Petitio q 

cpiXoaocpia 124 

0P«&> 132 

TrXarvapos 22 

TrXrjppeXeia 81 

Poenitentia 94 

noXepea) 176 

Prsevaricatio 76 

Precatio 2 

Prodigium 200 

Propitiation 140 

Prudentia 125 

Recens 48 

Sagena 65 

Sapientia 125 

Seculum 40 

<")/«* 201 

Senecta 206 

Senium 206 

Sensual m 

Sicarius 167 

Simplex 23 

Signum 200 

Spiritus lie 

enrovbrj 10 

Stonen 113 

Strenuus 18 

(TVvQfjKT] 10 

o-ucr^/xart^o) 101 



207 



214: 



INDEX. 



PAGE 

Tempus 30 

Tento 123 

&avfj.a 204 

Tolerantia 14 

Transfigure. 100 

Transform 100 

rpv(f>r) 19 

Tugend 170 



PAGE 

Ventus 116 

Verbum 192 

Vetus 85 

Yox 192 

Welt 41 

Weralt 41 

World 41 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: June 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 





014 383 703 8 



